If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On 07/23/2018 02:15 PM, Nil wrote:
[snip] There are a few like that, but they'll leave a message. I've never had Nomorobo block one of those. This one did. A few junk callers do leave messages (including "This is Officer. You have been sued by the IRS..."). Anyway, the junk messages don't seem so bad once they're no longer real time. BTW, there was really NO name given after "Officer". -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ If Jesus loves me, why doesn't he ever send me flowers? |
Ads |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 18:25:36 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Just because you think a group of tall fat blacks staring at you as you and they approach each other is not a sufficient excuse to whip out a handgun and start firing at them. You getting scared is not an excuse to kill. I get your example, but be aware that at least 24 states have adopted Stand Your Ground laws which essentially say that you can use deadly force if you feel threatened. It used to be that those laws only applied on your own premises, (home, office, etc.), but they've been expanded to apply anywhere in public that you're legally allowed to be. Just last week, a guy in Florida shoved another guy to the ground for supposedly verbally confronting his wife because she improperly parked in a handicapped spot. The guy on the ground whipped out a gun, shooting and killing the guy who shoved him. He died in front of his wife and 5 year old child, according to news reports. The local DA has issued a statement saying that charges will not be filed because the guy who got shoved to the ground was acting out of fear for his life. The whole thing was caught on video. To me, it looks like cold blooded murder, but apparently they see it differently in that part of Florida. What were you saying about, "You getting scared is not an excuse to kill"? :-) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/23/stand-your-ground-no-charges-florida-man-parking-lot-shooting/817755002/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clearwater-florida-stand-your-ground-shooting-markeis-mcglockton-parking-spot/ https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html -- Char Jackson |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:37:13 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Are you trying to avoid spam callers on a home phone or cell phone? On my cell phone, the default ringtone is "silent". That is, by default, my cell phone does not ring. For my contacts, I assign a ringtone for them. In fact, on my phone, all my contacts are in a default Contacts group. I define more groupings (but I haven't the need for it ... yet). I can assign a default ringtone per group, so I defined a ringtone for the Contacts group. I like your approach and have helped a few friends and family members set it up that way in recent years. When a call comes in on my cell phone from one of my contacts, my cell phone rings. All other calls are silent and the caller either hangs up (typical of robodialers that hang up after 3 rings) or gets shoved into voicemail. Robodialers that hang up after 3 rings? I've never seen that but I think I'd like it. In my experience, they hang on and let the phone ring until it stops ringing. That's typically 10 rings, at least for me. Maybe it's something I configured at some point. -- Char Jackson |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 21:41:59 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
The Caller ID info is sent between the 1st and 2nd rings. Since NoMoRobo gets called at the same time as, say, your landline it will also get the Caller ID info. They don't care about the name info, just the phone number info from Caller ID (plus some providers only forward the phone number info in Caller ID but not a name). It seems like that would be a major shortcoming these days, with most of my call-spam appearing to come from a random number that's made to look local (same area code and prefix). Is NoMoRobo still successful these days? -- Char Jackson |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 18:25:36 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Just because you think a group of tall fat blacks staring at you as you and they approach each other is not a sufficient excuse to whip out a handgun and start firing at them. You getting scared is not an excuse to kill. I get your example, but be aware that at least 24 states have adopted Stand Your Ground laws which essentially say that you can use deadly force if you feel threatened. It used to be that those laws only applied on your own premises, (home, office, etc.), but they've been expanded to apply anywhere in public that you're legally allowed to be. Just last week, a guy in Florida shoved another guy to the ground for supposedly verbally confronting his wife because she improperly parked in a handicapped spot. The guy on the ground whipped out a gun, shooting and killing the guy who shoved him. He died in front of his wife and 5 year old child, according to news reports. The local DA has issued a statement saying that charges will not be filed because the guy who got shoved to the ground was acting out of fear for his life. The whole thing was caught on video. To me, it looks like cold blooded murder, but apparently they see it differently in that part of Florida. What were you saying about, "You getting scared is not an excuse to kill"? :-) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/23/stand-your-ground-no-charges-florida-man-parking-lot-shooting/817755002/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clearwater-florida-stand-your-ground-shooting-markeis-mcglockton-parking-spot/ https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html Did I say you are not allowed to defend yourself when physically attacked? Getting pushed to the ground is a hell of lot different than seeing some big guys walking down the sidewalk that you think look mean. Did the shooter start firing because the girlfriend was yelling at him? Nope, it took a physical attack from the boyfriend before he protected himself. McGlockton walks out of a store to go push Drekja to the ground. Seconds after reeling from the physical attack, Drekja pulls out a gun to shoot McGlockton. For whining at a girl, some asshole comes up on your side to hurl you to the ground. Where's the connection the victim would have between the girl and some guy (who turns out to be her physically abusive boyfriend)? Looks like Drekja got blindsided. I think McGlockton is one of those boys who have to always prove he's a man to his girlfriend by getting into fights. Had that happen in an ice cream store when a gal walked to counter to cut in front of everyone else and started ordering. The counter clerk said she would have to wait her turn. She started yelling and left. Came my turn to get to the front of the line. A really huge guy come storming in and starts cussing out the clerk. When he went to push me out of the way, I clasped his hand against my chest and fell to my knees while bending forward to break 3 of his 4 fingers (thumbs aren't used in pushing). While knelt, I punched him in his groin. If that hadn't been enough to disable him, I would've gone a lot further in my counter attack considering his huge weight advantage. I don't carry handguns but then I'm not living wherever Drekja lives or shops. Seems there are parts of the story that the news isn't revealing. That's so they can sensationalize on the event. Per one article, '"He had to shoot to defend himself," Pinellas county sheriff Bob Gualtieri said.' Jacobs (the girlfriend) said her boyfriend was trying to protect her. From WHAT? Someone complaining that she parked illegally? Oh yes, we must always physically assault everyone who ever irritates us, uh huh. McGlockton was not protecting Jacobs. He assaulted Drekja without due provocation. Drekja was not physically assualting Jacobs. He was a whiner that protected himself from someone that actually assaulted him, not because he thought there was some nebulously interpreted intent to cause harm. Yes, seems extreme to shoot someone for pushing you down to the ground and also to be carrying a handgun. Yes, it *is* extreme to assault someone to the ground for barking at a girlfriend. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.647c83131c97 Notice that Drekja probably didn't have any time or way to know that the guy who pushed him down was Jacobs' boyfriend. The asshole just walks up and blindsides him by pushing Drekja to the ground. Here is some busybody whining to someone that they parked illegally and out of the blue some asshole comes over to physcially assault him. At the point Drekja drew his handgun, McGlockton stayed backed off. However, seeing this in retrospect doesn't obviate belief of imminent danger which does allow use of lethal force. This is a case of two extremists but one has the law on his side. This incident is far from blasting away at 3 mean-looking dudes walking at you on a sidewalk on a dark night. Guessing what is their intent doesn't permit you to shoot them. You could see if the mean dudes just walk past you, or you could walk around them, or cross the street, or, in the case of unwanted callers, just hangup on them. There was no guessing what was McGlockton's intent because it wasn't intent. It was assault! Would be interested to know if Drekja has a permit to carry. If not, well, that's something he could get charged with. Florida does ban open carry except in some situations. You can get a concealed carry permit there. The first jerk bitches at (verbally assaults) a girl for where she parked. A second jerk physically (not verbally) assaults the first jerk. The second jerk thinks he has the advantage in willingness to be physically abusive. The first jerk proves more dangerous than the second jerk by proving a handgun outweighs the second jerk. The first jerk has the law on his side. To me, the first jerk reacted too fast in using his handgun to be sure the second jerk was or was not going to physically assault the first jerk. However, judging others based on your combat training doesn't obviate the first jerk might've truly believed there was imminent danger of further attack. This wasn't a case of misjudging intent. The assault already happened! The first jerk already experienced a physical attack by the second jerk. For the common citizen, they're likely not be to able to read people's body motions (hip, stance, shoulders), eyes, and jawline to know if another attack is coming or not. Don't expect citizens to be trained in combat. This was not a case of reacting to guessed intent. This was a case of reacting to actual physical assault. "Might they do something bad" is not the issue in your example. |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 21:41:59 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: The Caller ID info is sent between the 1st and 2nd rings. Since NoMoRobo gets called at the same time as, say, your landline it will also get the Caller ID info. They don't care about the name info, just the phone number info from Caller ID (plus some providers only forward the phone number info in Caller ID but not a name). It seems like that would be a major shortcoming these days, with most of my call-spam appearing to come from a random number that's made to look local (same area code and prefix). Is NoMoRobo still successful these days? Spoofing has been a long-time problem. There are even sites that assist (as a cost) with doing the spoofing. Some spammers even spoof the number they call; i.e., you get a call that identifies as you calling yourself. The idea is that few users block their own phone number but then who calls themself? Spammers did this with e-mail, too, until more users realized they weren't sending spammy e-mails to themself, so the users started adding filters looking for e-mail from them sent to them, and e-mail providers started adding similar filters. Even when you decide to block a spammer, the number you block can be a spoofed number. That's why you have to clear out the old numbers from your blocklist. I'm not sure how long for when to expire old blacklisted phone numbers but I usually delete those older than a month. With NoMoRobo, you can only report spam calls. You don't get to otherwise update the blacklist. They don't release specs on how long or if they expire old "bad" phone numbers, and if they did then spammers could use that info against their blacklist. In the same way you rely on your e-mail provider's anti-spam blacklist to be updated so it is current is the same for when using NoMoRobo. I use DNSBLs (DNS blacklists) in blocking spam e-mails, too, and they each have their own flooring function (when to expire old records). I've used Bayesian filtering in the past but that requires a decent e-mail volume to be reasonably (not 100%) accurate, and I don't get enough e-mails to make Bayesian a viable filtering scheme. Some clients with Bayes don't have a flooring function (e.g., Outlook which instead relies on updated blacklists from Microsoft) which, to me, is stupid. Thunderbird doesn't have a flooring function for expiring outdated keywords, and I don't know if it gets an updated blacklist from Mozilla. Well, I suppose you could use nothing but then the effect is zero percentage of caught spam calls. I don't see how anyone would expect any blacklist to be 100% for coverage. That's just foolish expectation. I still use an umbrella in the rain despite that I might still get a bit wet in a storm. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On 24/07/2018 16:35, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 07/23/2018 02:15 PM, Nil wrote: [snip] There are a few like that, but they'll leave a message. I've never had Nomorobo block one of those. This one did. A few junk callers do leave messages (including "This is Officer. You have been sued by the IRS..."). Anyway, the junk messages don't seem so bad once they're no longer real time. BTW, there was really NO name given after "Officer". Yes it's almost as if somebody produces kits of messages to use for robo dialer scams and the scammers buy them and don't follow the instructions and leave the description of what they should fill in rather than actually filling in the name. I've had: "This is internet service provider, your internet will be cut off soon if you don't....". Pathetic. -- Brian Gregory (in England). |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 01:45:52 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , Nil writes: [] they invariably hang up. If I call back the caller ID number, it's usually not in service. [] Oh, you get faked CLIs in the US too, do you? Isn't faking CLI illegal? I'm still catching up on this thread, so someone may have mentioned that here in the US it's not illegal to spoof what we call Caller ID. Thus, the telco's aren't participating in any crime by passing on what they receive. If it is, aren't the telco.s participating in the crime? I don't think they can claim "common carrier" immunity; sure, any that _relay_ it maybe can, but the ones where the call _originates_ must know it isn't coming from the line it pretends to be. (And if they're from abroad, then it's the one that handles the call where it enters the country.) Aside: telco.s? Is it something on my end that's replacing the usual apostrophe with a period? -- Char Jackson |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 12:57:26 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Note that while some are ISPs provide voice service, they are not a VOIP service. If it's not POTS, it's a form of VoIP, and in the case of cable providers, it's not going to be POTS, so it's a form of VoIP. They operate as a telco. True, but all that means is that they tend to hand off the digitized VoIP traffic to the local telco exchange. If the destination is also within that exchange, then it's routed directly to its destination, converted back to analog within the exchange if the receiving customer is on POTS or forwarded as VoIP packets if the receiving customer has an eMTA or ATA. In that case, it'll be converted back to analog at the customer's premises. However, if the destination is not within that exchange, the packets will go out over the Internet to the exchange nearest the destination. Once they arrive there, they're treated the same as above, converted back to analog either at the exchange or at the customer's premises, depending on the type of service that the customer has. In the case of an ISP with a large-ish footprint, if the calling party and the receiving party aren't local to each other but both are customers of the same ISP, it's possible that the VoIP traffic will not be handed off to the local telco exchange but rather kept in-house, but even then it would travel over the Internet, even though it might stay within links controlled by that ISP. Your voice traffic is NOT traversing the Internet. It is unless the destination is also serviced by the exchange that the ISP handed off to. How else would it get delivered? For example, Comcast Voice is not a VOIP service. Actually, it is. They use an eMTA (ATA) to digitize the analog signals, then stuff the results into IP packets and send them on their way. It's literally Voice over IP. You are using an eMTA with Comcast Voice, not a VOIP adapter. The eMTA (embedded Multimedia Terminal Adapter) is an embedded ATA (analog telephone adapter) incorported into the cable modem. I'm not getting the distinction you're trying to make between a VoIP adapter (ATA) versus an eMTA (which I agree has an embedded ATA). Both are an ATA. One is a standalone device while the other is incorporated into a cable modem. They do exactly the same thing in exactly the same way. magicJack is definitely VOIP. Agreed. I do sometimes, however, tend to lump the ISP voice providers operating as telcos along with VOIP providers but I know I'm being inaccurate. Visually both are using the cable modem but the user may be unaware that a voice-capable cable modem has an eMTA. There are minor differences, but essentially all are forms of VoIP. VOIP The acronym is VoIP rather than VOIP. is Voice Over Internet Protocol I'm nitpicking, but it's actually Voice over IP. The 'o' is always lower case. which means VOIP traverses the Internet No, VoIP just means that the analog voice signals are digitized and packetized, then carried over an IP protocol to their destination where they will be converted back to analog. SIP is one such IP protocol, but there are others. (For example, Sprint uses SIP. I helped to design that portion of their data network way back in the day.) VoIP calls may or may not traverse the Internet. In most cases, they do. Local (intra-exchange) calls don't because they don't need to, but almost everything else uses the Internet for transport. What many people may be surprised to know is that virtually all non-intra-exchange calls are now VoIP, and have been for well over 10 years. Sprint Long Distance, for example, completely converted to VoIP somewhere around 2003 or 2004, (and the other telcos did likewise around the same time). The exact timing is fuzzy since it's been so long, but they use SprintLink, aka the Sprint backbone, aka the Internet, to transport the digitized voice packets to wherever they need to go. At some point, the packets are converted back to analog, either at the exchange that's local to the destination in the case of POTS or at the eMTA/ATA that's part of the customer's CPE equipment. (Yes, that's completely redundant but I'm too lazy to fix it.) hence why quality suffers due to routing through various hosts, and VoIP has no real inherent voice quality issues. Did anyone notice when switched analog circuits gave way to digitized voice packets? I'd say no, not really. There were a few hiccups in the early years here and there, but I'm not aware of any significant issues within the last 8-10 years or so. The technology is pretty fully baked by now. QoS is implemented at each of the bottlenecks, for example. (I helped set that up, as well.) connecting to landlines using VOIP requires the VOIP provider have gear at the telco exchanges to convert from VOIP to regular telephony (and why it took years for magicJack to work everywhere in the USA while they were implanting their converters at the telcos). VoIP providers don't need to have gear there. They just need to have an agreement in place, and that's often harder than it might seem. Every exchange is already connected to the Internet, so no additional gear is needed. -- Char Jackson |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On 7/25/2018 5:59 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
Aside: telco.s? Is it something on my end that's replacing the usual apostrophe with a period? It is not only you. I too see a period instead of an apostrophe. -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com/ Attorney-General Sessions claims the bible favors imprisoning illegal aliens. However, God repeatedly commanded us to welcome the stranger in our land. For example, see the following: Exodus 22:20 at http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=2&CHAPTER=22#P2 131 Exodus 23:9 at http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=2&CHAPTER=23#P2 151 Deuteronomy 10:19 at http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=5&CHAPTER=10#P5 200 |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 19:30:46 -0700, "David E. Ross"
wrote: On 7/25/2018 5:59 PM, Char Jackson wrote: Aside: telco.s? Is it something on my end that's replacing the usual apostrophe with a period? It is not only you. I too see a period instead of an apostrophe. Thanks. Maybe it's a new thing that I'm slow to catch on to. :-) I'm sure John (J.P.) will clue me in. -- Char Jackson |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 17:17:23 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Char Jackson wrote: On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 18:25:36 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Just because you think a group of tall fat blacks staring at you as you and they approach each other is not a sufficient excuse to whip out a handgun and start firing at them. You getting scared is not an excuse to kill. I get your example, but be aware that at least 24 states have adopted Stand Your Ground laws which essentially say that you can use deadly force if you feel threatened. It used to be that those laws only applied on your own premises, (home, office, etc.), but they've been expanded to apply anywhere in public that you're legally allowed to be. Just last week, a guy in Florida shoved another guy to the ground for supposedly verbally confronting his wife because she improperly parked in a handicapped spot. The guy on the ground whipped out a gun, shooting and killing the guy who shoved him. He died in front of his wife and 5 year old child, according to news reports. The local DA has issued a statement saying that charges will not be filed because the guy who got shoved to the ground was acting out of fear for his life. The whole thing was caught on video. To me, it looks like cold blooded murder, but apparently they see it differently in that part of Florida. What were you saying about, "You getting scared is not an excuse to kill"? :-) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/23/stand-your-ground-no-charges-florida-man-parking-lot-shooting/817755002/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clearwater-florida-stand-your-ground-shooting-markeis-mcglockton-parking-spot/ https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html Did I say you are not allowed to defend yourself when physically attacked? No, you said "You getting scared is not an excuse to kill" but in this case the shooter said he fired out of fear for his life, so apparently in Florida (and potentially 23 other states) 'you getting scared' is precisely an excuse to kill. -- Char Jackson |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:10:59 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Char Jackson wrote: On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 21:41:59 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: The Caller ID info is sent between the 1st and 2nd rings. Since NoMoRobo gets called at the same time as, say, your landline it will also get the Caller ID info. They don't care about the name info, just the phone number info from Caller ID (plus some providers only forward the phone number info in Caller ID but not a name). It seems like that would be a major shortcoming these days, with most of my call-spam appearing to come from a random number that's made to look local (same area code and prefix). Is NoMoRobo still successful these days? Spoofing has been a long-time problem. There are even sites that assist (as a cost) with doing the spoofing. Some spammers even spoof the number they call; i.e., you get a call that identifies as you calling yourself. The idea is that few users block their own phone number but then who calls themself? Spammers did this with e-mail, too, until more users realized they weren't sending spammy e-mails to themself, so the users started adding filters looking for e-mail from them sent to them, and e-mail providers started adding similar filters. Even when you decide to block a spammer, the number you block can be a spoofed number. That's why you have to clear out the old numbers from your blocklist. I'm not sure how long for when to expire old blacklisted phone numbers but I usually delete those older than a month. With NoMoRobo, you can only report spam calls. You don't get to otherwise update the blacklist. They don't release specs on how long or if they expire old "bad" phone numbers, and if they did then spammers could use that info against their blacklist. In the same way you rely on your e-mail provider's anti-spam blacklist to be updated so it is current is the same for when using NoMoRobo. I use DNSBLs (DNS blacklists) in blocking spam e-mails, too, and they each have their own flooring function (when to expire old records). I've used Bayesian filtering in the past but that requires a decent e-mail volume to be reasonably (not 100%) accurate, and I don't get enough e-mails to make Bayesian a viable filtering scheme. Some clients with Bayes don't have a flooring function (e.g., Outlook which instead relies on updated blacklists from Microsoft) which, to me, is stupid. Thunderbird doesn't have a flooring function for expiring outdated keywords, and I don't know if it gets an updated blacklist from Mozilla. Well, I suppose you could use nothing but then the effect is zero percentage of caught spam calls. I don't see how anyone would expect any blacklist to be 100% for coverage. That's just foolish expectation. I still use an umbrella in the rain despite that I might still get a bit wet in a storm. Thanks. I don't think you answered my question, but you did provide enough info to let me know that NoMoRobo is not for me. Not only would it be ineffective against the vast majority of calls that I get, but you also hinted that users might be expected to report spam calls to help build the database, which makes sense, but those two items combined are a deal breaker. -- Char Jackson |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
I say people need to stop freaking out when confronted for doing illegal or
wrong things. This menelennial generation has is ruining this world for the rest of us normal folks. If the guy had just talked calmly to the other person the shooting might not have happened. I my self show no mercy for those who park in handicapped spaces with out a handicapped plate or hang tag its just wrong to park in one for no reason. "Char Jackson" wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 18:25:36 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Just because you think a group of tall fat blacks staring at you as you and they approach each other is not a sufficient excuse to whip out a handgun and start firing at them. You getting scared is not an excuse to kill. I get your example, but be aware that at least 24 states have adopted Stand Your Ground laws which essentially say that you can use deadly force if you feel threatened. It used to be that those laws only applied on your own premises, (home, office, etc.), but they've been expanded to apply anywhere in public that you're legally allowed to be. Just last week, a guy in Florida shoved another guy to the ground for supposedly verbally confronting his wife because she improperly parked in a handicapped spot. The guy on the ground whipped out a gun, shooting and killing the guy who shoved him. He died in front of his wife and 5 year old child, according to news reports. The local DA has issued a statement saying that charges will not be filed because the guy who got shoved to the ground was acting out of fear for his life. The whole thing was caught on video. To me, it looks like cold blooded murder, but apparently they see it differently in that part of Florida. What were you saying about, "You getting scared is not an excuse to kill"? :-) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/23/stand-your-ground-no-charges-florida-man-parking-lot-shooting/817755002/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clearwater-florida-stand-your-ground-shooting-markeis-mcglockton-parking-spot/ https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html -- Char Jackson |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:10:59 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Char Jackson wrote: On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 21:41:59 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: The Caller ID info is sent between the 1st and 2nd rings. Since NoMoRobo gets called at the same time as, say, your landline it will also get the Caller ID info. They don't care about the name info, just the phone number info from Caller ID (plus some providers only forward the phone number info in Caller ID but not a name). It seems like that would be a major shortcoming these days, with most of my call-spam appearing to come from a random number that's made to look local (same area code and prefix). Is NoMoRobo still successful these days? Spoofing has been a long-time problem. There are even sites that assist (as a cost) with doing the spoofing. Some spammers even spoof the number they call; i.e., you get a call that identifies as you calling yourself. The idea is that few users block their own phone number but then who calls themself? Spammers did this with e-mail, too, until more users realized they weren't sending spammy e-mails to themself, so the users started adding filters looking for e-mail from them sent to them, and e-mail providers started adding similar filters. Even when you decide to block a spammer, the number you block can be a spoofed number. That's why you have to clear out the old numbers from your blocklist. I'm not sure how long for when to expire old blacklisted phone numbers but I usually delete those older than a month. With NoMoRobo, you can only report spam calls. You don't get to otherwise update the blacklist. They don't release specs on how long or if they expire old "bad" phone numbers, and if they did then spammers could use that info against their blacklist. In the same way you rely on your e-mail provider's anti-spam blacklist to be updated so it is current is the same for when using NoMoRobo. I use DNSBLs (DNS blacklists) in blocking spam e-mails, too, and they each have their own flooring function (when to expire old records). I've used Bayesian filtering in the past but that requires a decent e-mail volume to be reasonably (not 100%) accurate, and I don't get enough e-mails to make Bayesian a viable filtering scheme. Some clients with Bayes don't have a flooring function (e.g., Outlook which instead relies on updated blacklists from Microsoft) which, to me, is stupid. Thunderbird doesn't have a flooring function for expiring outdated keywords, and I don't know if it gets an updated blacklist from Mozilla. Well, I suppose you could use nothing but then the effect is zero percentage of caught spam calls. I don't see how anyone would expect any blacklist to be 100% for coverage. That's just foolish expectation. I still use an umbrella in the rain despite that I might still get a bit wet in a storm. Thanks. I don't think you answered my question, but you did provide enough info to let me know that NoMoRobo is not for me. Not only would it be ineffective against the vast majority of calls that I get, but you also hinted that users might be expected to report spam calls to help build the database, which makes sense, but those two items combined are a deal breaker. You asked (without stating it as spoofing) how NoMoRobo eliminates spoofing. It can't. That's a technical issue that must be address by the telephony providers in figuring out how to completely eliminate spoofing (whether it be legally or illegally employed). What's your solution that eliminates 100% of spam calls? For me and many others, getting rid of 85% of the spam calls has a big impact of reducing the nuisance. I've yet to see any suspension or tire completely eliminate road noise and vibration transmitted into the passenger cabin but that doesn't mean I'll sacrifice those amenties to replace the shock absorbers with pipes and use solid-rubber tires just because there isn't a perfect setup. Do you also not employ any anti-spam filtering for your e-mail whether it be inbuilt to your local e-mail client or embedded in your e-mail provider's service? Your e-mail client has absolutely no anti-spam functionality? Does your e-mail provider even let you disable their server-side anti-spam filtering? You disable all anti-spam filtering in your local e-mail client and in your account settings so you can relish and wallow in all spam that hits your account? Well, some folks enjoy cutting themselves, too. Most of the rest of prefer less pain, and that means less spam e-mails and less spam calls although nothing we employ will guarantee 100% freedom from spam. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|