Charles P. Bowles (cpbowles@gte.net)
Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:28:48 -0600
> At 03:32 PM 12/1/00 -0800, Byung Hee Choung wrote:
> >Reading through draft-ietf-vpim-vpimv2r2-01.txt I had a question.
> >
> >In the sender field, I think VPIM format expects that it will contain the
> >phone number of the sending user. How have systems dealt with sending
> >phone numbers of users who have 'unlisted' phone numbers? Is it expected
> >that a 'pseudo' phone number will be used, in which case a reply back to
> >the send will not be supported?
>
> How does this differ from a caller-ID normally being sent for a phone
call,
> even if the caller is unlisted? I think "listing" and sender anonymity
are
> two distinct issues.
SenderID is separate from the "unlisted number" issue, but similar in some
respects. Customers pay for unlisted numbers, and those are then protected
by Directory Assistance services, as well as by Directory companies. It's
also true that the same people who unlist their numbers will blindly let
everything about them be published on internet directory services, but we
can't use that. Service Providers would have to get legal clarification to
know whether messaging will be subject to unlisted number rules.
an on-going issue in the Wide Area Messaging (VPIM) discussions. Most
service providers are operating under edicts to protect the rights of
CallerID blockers, and have features in-place to do that in their swiches.
It seems that messaging has so far escaped these legal edicts, though some
providers currently offering messaging also have blocking functionality --
because they were advised by legal staffs that blocking rules likely apply
to messaging also.
One solution, and the one Service Providers like best, is to give the
ability to the end-user customers to block their CallerID. To mirror their
telephone experience, we would provide an option to either block one message
or all messages. If blocking is done, then the sender field could be filled
with a code (eg. '9999999999'), which the other end interprets as "BLOCKED,"
and responds appropriately. In this case, it would be exactly like getting
a call from an unlisted or CallerID Blocked originator -- no reply possible.
Would this lead to vendors eventually building CLASS features (eg.
Rejection/Acceptance lists, *69 Callback, etc.) for messaging? Maybe that'd
be a good thing.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Dec 03 2000 - 20:29:29 IST