We are using both the CIM and ARB APIs, and handling transaction information via a Silent Post URL.

For ARB transactions, we recieve both the [x_subscription_id] and [x_subscription_paynum] in the Silent Post data, thus identifying the transaction as an ARB payment.

However for CIM transactions there is no identifiable data in the Silent Post that allows us to determine that the transaction is a CIM payment (versus a SIM or AIM payment, or one via the virtual terminal), and from which CIM customer.

According to John Conde's All About Authorize.Net’s Silent Post article (which was very useful - thanks John), he states:

"[Silent Post] reports the same information as an AIM transaction response but also includes the subscription ID and subscription transaction number for ARB subscriptions and CIM Profile ID for CIM transactions"

and goes on to show a [x_cim_profile_id] field in his example.

However we have never seen a [x_cim_profile_id] field in any Silent Post data we have received.

Is this just John's wishful thinking perhaps, or is it a basic piece of data that Authorize.Net have neglected to supply? Maybe there's a good security reason for not sending the customer profile id or the payment profile.

We are using our own customer reference, and recieve this via the [x_cust_id] field, so we do have the facility to cross-reference it, however it does seem like a shortcoming of Silent Post and the various payment APIs.

@John: would be especially grateful for your comments on this.

Thanks