I have a couple of useful bits that could be tacked on to this..
1. Telcos required to offer the ability to set the outbound caller id.
2. Telcos required to offer the ability to write to the CNAM database, in
near-real or short time.
3. Telcos required to forward the ANI you provide to the 911
Obviously we (as an industry) have to start to take notice of this spoofing.
otherwise big brother will start to legistrate against it. This will
give the CRTC or FCC another excuse to spend a lot of tax payers money on
something which is of marginal value.
My position is that there are only two
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 01:00:18PM -0400, Henry.L.Coleman wrote:
Obviously we (as an industry) have to start to take notice of this spoofing.
otherwise big brother will start to legistrate against it. This will
give the CRTC or FCC another excuse to spend a lot of tax payers money on
something
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 01:00:18PM -0400, Henry.L.Coleman wrote:
My position is that there are only two reasons for wanting to change an
outbound CID:
1. to deceive the called party
2. to validate the calling party
I don't know how much notice people take of CID but
This seems like a piece members of this list would find interesting...
===
There is growing concern over the interaction of VoIP systems
with the legacy PSTN, and the transmission of caller identity
data--most notably, Caller ID on the PSTN. It is not always
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 02:57:38PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
This seems like a piece members of this list would find interesting...
Further down, he notes:
The PSTN cannot turn on a dime and restrict ANI/CLID from many
clients using whitelist filters. Caller ID manipulation
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:12 -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 02:57:38PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
This seems like a piece members of this list would find interesting...
Further down, he notes:
The PSTN cannot turn on a dime and restrict ANI/CLID from many
J
I have seen your paper on the caller ID issue I can't agree with you more.
On 10/24/06, J. Oquendo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:12 -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 02:57:38PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
This seems like a piece members of this
