Woof! On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:08:51 -0500, Joly, Robert (CAR:9D30) <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Spitzer, Andy (BL60:9D30) >> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 2:00 PM >> To: Joly, Robert (CAR:9D30); [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [sipX-dev] Fixing 2233 - Caller ID is not >> displayed on the Gateway. >> >> Woof! >> >> On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 13:37:09 -0500, Robert Joly >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Solution #2: strip off the P-Asserted-Identity as the >> request leaves >> > sipXproxy after is has completed its spiraling. >> >> Instead of striping it as it leaves sipXproxy, set it to the >> From: header so they match? > > That would still leave you with drawback 'b' of solution #1. The > identity that was asserted by sipXproxy is the user's actual identity - > not its caller ID alias. As an example, consider 100 and 200 two valid > users on SIP server 'example.com'. User 100 configures its caller ID to > be '200'. With this proposal, the sipXproxy will assert that the > identity of the requester is [email protected] when in fact it is > [email protected]. > Well, perhaps I'm being obtuse here, but isn't the reason we "fake" the outbound caller ID is so that it looks as if you are someone you are not? In the real world, jamming the "from" field is to tell the gateway to set the calling line ID to a known DID number (either the caller's individual one, or the pilot number of the hunt group). It isn't really meant to mascarade one registered user as another. But so what? That's what the admin wants to do, so why would it be "wrong" to change PAI? It's just as "wrong" to change "from" but we allow that (now). --Woof! _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
