On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 14:53 -0500, Dale Worley wrote: > On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 14:44 -0500, Arjun Nair wrote: > > Or else, we could just have sipXconfig answer the challenge. I am > > leaning towards this method, as it would make the system more secure. > > I can see that eventually we will want to require authentication for > messages that cause reboots, so we might as well start building the > infrastructure to do so. (It does not appear to be much more work than > any other solution.)
+1 _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
