ve multi gray- leveling: A voice spam protection algorithm. IEEE Network Journal 20(5): 18-24. September-October. [16] Baumann, R., S. Cavin, and S. Schmid. 2006. Voice over IP-Security and SPIT. Swiss Army, FU Br 41, KryptDet Report, University of Berne, September. [17] Peterson, J., and C. Jennings 2006. Enhancements for authenticated identity management in the session initiation protocol. RFC 4474. August. [18] Tschofenig, H., R. Falk, and J. Peterson. 2006. Using SAML to pro- tect the session initiation protocol. IEEE Network Journal 20(5): 14-17. September-October. [19] Madhosingh, A. 2006. The design of a differentiated SIP to control VoIP spam. Technical Report, Computer Science Department, Florida State University. [20] Niccolini, S. 2007. SPIT prevention: State of the art and research chal- lenges. NEC Europe, Germany: Network Laboratories. [21] Dantu, R., and P. Kolan. Detecting spam in VoIP networks. In Proceed- ings of Steps to Reducing Unwanted Traffic on the Internet Workshop (SRUTI '05). USA. July 2005. [22] Rohwer, T., C. Tolkmit, M. Hansen, M. Hansen, J. Moeller, and H. Waack. Abwehr von spam over internet telephony. (SPIT-AL), Kiel 2006. 1-30. © 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Anonymity in SIP L. Kazatzopoulos, K. Delakourides and G. F. Marias Athens University of Economics and Business CONTENTS 20.1 Introduction 20.2 Motivation 20.3 Generalized Anonymity Architectures 20.4 Proposals for Anonymity in SIP 20.5 A New Proposal for Anonymity in SIP 20.6 Conclusions References 20.1 Introduction In 1993, Peter Steiner published a cartoon in the The New Yorker*, which illustrated a dog communicating over the Internet. The caption of this cartoon appears to be extremely prophetic for the Internet community, since it asserted that "On the Internet, nobody knows you are a dog" Actually, as far back as the early 1990s, this assumption was somehow valid, mainly because the communication intermediates or relays, did not care, worry, or ask if the end- user was actually a dog or a human. Nowadays, end-use