<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Brian West wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:6DE1ECA1-BDEA-4257-B7CF-36E6DBC7BBF3@freeswitch.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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".
</pre>
</blockquote>
That's not quite the case. In the good old world, there was generally
a fairly clear <br>
distinction between users and carriers. Caller ID would be passed
between carriers<br>
with the privacy flags set or not as required, but, if it had been
withheld by a caller,<br>
would not then be delivered to the end user. Otherwise you're
essentially giving it<br>
to the end user and asking them not to peek, which isn't terribly
secure.<br>
<br>
Nowadays, if I want to withhold my CLI, I don't send anything. That
works pretty<br>
well. Don't put junk in - I know that I can't call various
destinations over BT if I<br>
use something bogus (like na, or thiscliisaloadofoldbollocks[1]); I get
a 403 Forbidden<br>
back.<br>
<br>
--Dave<br>
<br>
[1] "bollocks" was once defined on Wikipedia as "the Swiss army knife
of andrological<br>
profanities" - unfortunately, like most excellent stuff on the <strike>word's
most comprehensive<br>
Star Trek factsheet</strike> encyclopedia anyone can ruin, that
particular gem's been edited out.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks</a> is still worth a read, though.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>