[VoiceOps] Linefeed in CNAM data?

[Nathan Anderson]

???  That's...wrong.

I'm not a customer, but given that they have a "free" option, I decided to try an OpenCNAM query for that number and got this:

'CNAM for phone "+16617480240" is currently unavailable for Hobbyist Tier users.'

What?  Their site says nothing about lookups for certain numbers only being avaiable on the "pro" tier.  What is up with this particular phone number??

-- Nathan

On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:15 PM, Carlos Alvarez <mailto:Carlos at thresholdcommunications.com> wrote:

> I get Neilsen Paul from OpenCNAM.
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> on behalf of Nathan
> Anderson <nathana at fsr.com> 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 6:12 PM
> To: 'voiceops at voiceops.org'
> Subject: [VoiceOps] Linefeed in CNAM data?
> 
> Our CNAM lookup provider is sending us name data for one particular
> number that includes a linefeed in it.  It's possible that it's their
> mistake and that this particular number's CNAM data doesn't actually have
> this character in it, but it raises the question: is this a legal
> character?    
> 
> The number in question is a SkypeOut gateway: 661-748-0240 -- I'd be
> curious to know what other people are seeing on a CNAM lookup for this. 
> What we are getting is "SKYPE USER\nSKYPE USER".  And, actually, now that
> I think about it, this can't possibly be the actual value since I believe
> CNAM is limited to 15 characters.  So I'll talk to our provider about
> this.  (This is the only number that we have seen anything like this
> with.)      
> 
> BTW, it turns out that when Asterisk sends an INVITE and the
> CALLERID(name) value has been stuffed with a string that contains a
> newline, it decides to send this in the headers:  
> 
> From: "SKYPE USER\
> SKYPE USER" <sip:6617480240 at 192.0.2.1>
> 
> ...so it includes the linefeed (ASCII 10) in the string, but tries to
> escape it with a '\' (which is not entirely unprecedented).  An Asterisk
> box on the receiving end of that INVITE, however, will completely ignore
> the INVITE...it won't log an error and doesn't bother dignifying it with
> a response, probably because it sees that as two separate lines (it
> doesn't concatenate two lines that are separated by a '\') and the second
> line all by itself looks like garbage/wouldn't make sense to a SIP dialog
> parser.