Expectations are just that. A quick stroll through the ideas section would show requests years old, some with no responses from 3CX. Common sense would dictate that if there was a work around, 3CX or someone would have posted it by now. But I would categorize that as a resolution, not a response which was already given. But it seems to be a fundamental design issue and like most software development companies, they aren't going to commit to anything without figuring out the full impact of that change. And with the focus on getting v18 out the door, it doesn't seem unreasonable that they haven't updated it yet. They only have so much in the way of development resources which I'm sure are already committed to various other requests. And while this is a high priority issue for the OP, given that it's been there for quite some time without really any discussion about it prior, it's probably considered low priority at this point.
I whole heartedly agree a update would be fantastic and be excellent customer service, but I still think that the 3CX response was proper. Maybe not complete, or not timely if you want to factor in everything from start to resolution, but as far as what the op stated was a concern, and 3CX saying we agree and we will see what we can do, that seems proper.
I do hope it's as simple as the op suggests as a possible fix, but plenty of other requests such as outbound rule flexibiilty and others which took years to appear 'seemed' to be a simple code fix and it was stated many times by various 3CX folks that without having access to the code, we have no idea what is and isn't simple.
