Brian West wrote:
It will always contain the number. Its the far ends responsibility to
honor the privacy flags. The same happens on a PRI as far as I have
seen. Nobody should have the ability to withhold that info from your
"switch".
That's not quite the case. In the good old world, there was generally a
fairly clear
distinction between users and carriers. Caller ID would be passed
between carriers
with the privacy flags set or not as required, but, if it had been
withheld by a caller,
would not then be delivered to the end user. Otherwise you're
essentially giving it
to the end user and asking them not to peek, which isn't terribly secure.
Nowadays, if I want to withhold my CLI, I don't send anything. That
works pretty
well. Don't put junk in - I know that I can't call various destinations
over BT if I
use something bogus (like na, or thiscliisaloadofoldbollocks[1]); I get
a 403 Forbidden
back.
--Dave
[1] "bollocks" was once defined on Wikipedia as "the Swiss army knife of
andrological
profanities" - unfortunately, like most excellent stuff on the word's
most comprehensive
Star Trek factsheet encyclopedia anyone can ruin, that particular gem's
been edited out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks is still worth a read, though.
_______________________________________________
Freeswitch-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org
