Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #182937 > unrolled thread

OT: spam phone calls

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10

Contents

  OT: spam phone calls Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-03-20 12:10 +0000
    Re: OT: spam phone calls "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-03-20 08:53 -0400
      Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-03-20 17:37 +0000
      Re: OT: spam phone calls Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-03-21 12:08 +0000
    Re: OT: spam phone calls Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-03-20 12:58 +0000
    Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-20 15:00 +0100
      Re: OT: spam phone calls Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-03-20 15:21 +0000
        Re: OT: spam phone calls D <noreply@mixmin.net> - 2025-03-20 16:16 +0000
        Re: OT: spam phone calls Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-03-20 18:53 +0100
          Re: OT: spam phone calls Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-03-20 18:39 +0000
      Re: OT: spam phone calls David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2025-03-20 15:50 +0000
        Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-20 22:32 +0100
      Re: OT: spam phone calls Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-03-21 12:18 +0000
      Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-09 12:50 +0200
    Re: OT: spam phone calls Invalid <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-20 16:31 +0000
      Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-08 21:42 +1000
    Re: OT: spam phone calls Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-03-20 12:59 -0400
      Re: OT: spam phone calls "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-21 04:41 -0700
        Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-21 13:51 +0100
          Re: OT: spam phone calls Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-03-21 11:23 -0400
            Re: OT: spam phone calls micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-03-21 12:32 -0400
              Re: OT: spam phone calls Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-03-21 18:52 +0000
                Re: OT: spam phone calls micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-03 08:00 -0400
                  Re: OT: spam phone calls Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-03 12:14 +0000
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-03 14:22 +0200
                  Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-03 14:13 +0200
              Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-22 14:53 +0100
                Re: OT: spam phone calls Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-03-22 12:10 -0400
                  Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-03-22 17:06 +0000
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-03-22 13:24 -0400
                      Re: OT: spam phone calls Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-03-22 22:43 +0100
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2025-03-22 20:36 +0000
                      Re: OT: spam phone calls micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-03 08:27 -0400
                  Re: OT: spam phone calls micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-03 08:22 -0400
                Re: OT: spam phone calls micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-03 08:07 -0400
                  Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-03 14:19 +0200
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-03 09:14 -0400
                      Re: OT: spam phone calls Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-04-03 18:10 +0200
          Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-03-21 18:11 +0000
            Re: OT: spam phone calls micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-03 08:28 -0400
              Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-03 14:37 +0200
          Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-08 21:55 +1000
            Re: OT: spam phone calls "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-04-08 08:10 -0400
              Re: OT: spam phone calls Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-04-08 13:52 +0100
                Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-08 20:33 +0000
                  Re: OT: spam phone calls Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-04-09 11:45 +0100
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2025-04-10 09:16 +0100
                      Re: OT: spam phone calls Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-04-10 09:33 +0100
                        Re: OT: spam phone calls JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2025-04-10 14:40 +0100
              Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-08 20:23 +0000
              Re: OT: spam phone calls bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2025-04-08 17:06 -0400
            Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-08 18:55 +0000
              Re: OT: spam phone calls David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2025-04-09 14:16 +0100
            Re: OT: spam phone calls Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-04-09 12:21 +0200
              Re: OT: spam phone calls ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-04-09 19:54 +0000
                Re: OT: spam phone calls Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-04-09 17:07 -0500
                Re: OT: spam phone calls JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2025-04-10 09:18 +0100
    Re: OT: spam phone calls mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) - 2025-03-20 14:21 -0400
    Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-03-31 20:35 +1100
      Re: OT: spam phone calls Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-03-31 12:23 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#182937 — OT: spam phone calls

I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:

Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang 
her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone has 
been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a 
signal) all morning, with nobody near it.

The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's 
recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error 
in dialling my number.

I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed that 
they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no longer true - 
unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471 service can 
see an erroneous number.


-- 
Graham J

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#182938

On 3/20/25 08:10 AM, Graham J wrote:
> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
> 
> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang her landline earlier 
> this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone has been sitting on the windowsill (being 
> the only place it can get a signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
> 
> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's recall facility to 
> ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error in dialling my number.
> 
> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed that they chose 
> unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no longer true - unless all you here can 
> think of another way that the 1471 service can see an erroneous number.
> 
> 
I get calls on my phone/land line both.   Now and then I'll get 2-3 calls one after the 
other, 10 seconds apart.   My theory is that it's a robo caller redialing me a few times 
to see if I'll pick up maybe if I see a diff number.

I've had the strongest desire to try calling them back but I feel I'd probably just be 
bugging some poor old lady or worse, some son of a bitch guy with a gun and a chip on his 
shoulder and a death wish.

-- 
Linux Mint 22.1, Cinnamon 6.4.8,  Kernel 6.8.0-55-generic
Thunderbird 128.8.0esr, Mozilla Firefox 136.0.1
     Alan K.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182948

On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 08:53:33 -0400, Alan K. wrote:

[snip]

> I get calls on my phone/land line both.   Now and then I'll get 2-3
> calls one after the other, 10 seconds apart.   My theory is that it's a
> robo caller redialing me a few times to see if I'll pick up maybe if I
> see a diff number.

I really wish cell phones would show caller ID NAME. That allows me to 
recognize most junk calls on my home phone. A couple of years ago, the 
usual display was "CITY ST" like "TELEPHONE TX". Now I still get some of 
those, but most have a NAME display the same as the number.

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"...and when you tell me that your deity made you in his own image, I
reply that he must be very ugly." -- Victor Hugo, writing to clergy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182975

In article <vrh34d$38187$1@dont-email.me>, alan@invalid.com says...
>
>On 3/20/25 08:10 AM, Graham J wrote:
...
>
>I've had the strongest desire to try calling them back but I feel I'd probably just be 
>bugging some poor old lady or worse, some son of a bitch guy with a gun and a chip on his 
>shoulder and a death wish.

Or simply validating that it's a line being used by someone - another 
mug for the database...

-- 
--
Phil, London

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182939

In article <vrh0k4$36vfn$1@dont-email.me>, nobody@nowhere.co.uk says...
>
>I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
>
>Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang 
>her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone has 
>been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a 
>signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
>
>The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's 
>recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error 
>in dialling my number.
>
>I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed that 
>they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no longer true - 
>unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471 service can 
>see an erroneous number.

Given that they don't care who they inconvenience, there's probably 
little benefit in ensuring they are using an unallocated number.  And 
possible a benefit in using an existing one - anyone trying to follow it 
up may get bogged down in a dispute with the number's owner - 
distracting them from the real culprit.

There are special cubicles in Hell for these people.

-- 
--
Phil, London

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182940

On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:
> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:

There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like 
comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to this 
post, so they will see your post below.

> 
> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang 
> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone has 
> been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a 
> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
> 
> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's 
> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error 
> in dialling my number.
> 
> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed that 
> they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no longer true - 
> unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471 service can 
> see an erroneous number.

I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in a 
call.

I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the 
number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer to 
let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182941

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:

> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:
>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
>
> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like
> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to
> this post, so they will see your post below.
>
>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang
>> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone
>> has been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a
>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.  The lady used 1471 to find
>> out who had rung her number, and used it's recall facility to ring
>> me; so she didn't make any transcription error in dialling my number.
>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed
>> that they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no
>> longer true - unless all you here can think of another way that the
>> 1471 service can see an erroneous number.
>
> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in
> a call.
>
> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the
> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer
> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.

It doesn't yet cover spoofed mobile numbers in caller-id.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182943

On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 15:21:54 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:
>>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
>>
>> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like
>> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to
>> this post, so they will see your post below.
>>
>>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang
>>> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone
>>> has been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a
>>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.  The lady used 1471 to find
>>> out who had rung her number, and used it's recall facility to ring
>>> me; so she didn't make any transcription error in dialling my number.
>>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed
>>> that they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no
>>> longer true - unless all you here can think of another way that the
>>> 1471 service can see an erroneous number.
>>
>> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in
>> a call.
>> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the
>> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer
>> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.
>
>It doesn't yet cover spoofed mobile numbers in caller-id.

it's telephone terrorism, and phone companies get their scintillas

since their inception, telegraph and telephone companies have been
(big brother's black magic marker redacting records of secret data)

there's nothing to see here  ...  keep moving  ...  keep moving ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182950

On 20.03.25 16:21, Richmond wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the
>> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer
>> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.
> 
> It doesn't yet cover spoofed mobile numbers in caller-id.

Sure it does: Usually you do not know the spoofed numbers so you do not
take up the call. That is what we do too.

If it is important people can leave a message on the voicemail box.

-- 
"De gustibus non est disputandum."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182952

Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> writes:

> On 20.03.25 16:21, Richmond wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>>> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the
>>> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer
>>> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.
>> 
>> It doesn't yet cover spoofed mobile numbers in caller-id.
>
> Sure it does: Usually you do not know the spoofed numbers so you do not
> take up the call. That is what we do too.
>
> If it is important people can leave a message on the voicemail box.

You deleted the part I was referring to.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182942

On 20/03/2025 14:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:
>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
> 
> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like 
> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to this 
> post, so they will see your post below.
> 
>>
>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang 
>> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone has 
>> been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a 
>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
>>
>> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's 
>> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error 
>> in dialling my number.
>>
>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed 
>> that they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no longer 
>> true - unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471 
>> service can see an erroneous number.

I had the same a while ago. Got lots of angry calls on my mobile. For a 
while I changed my voice mail to tell callers my number was being 
spoofed. Seems to have stopped being used now.

> 
> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in a 
> call.
> 

I think using a mobile by-passes the regulation, because otherwise it 
would prevent mobile roaming. Expect more use of mobiles by scammers.

> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the 
> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer to 
> let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.
> 
> 
I wish others would do that, but of course with a mobile "it might be a 
friend with a new number" so its tempting to return the call

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182958

On 2025-03-20 16:50, David Wade wrote:
> On 20/03/2025 14:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:
>>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
>>
>> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like 
>> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to 
>> this post, so they will see your post below.
>>
>>>
>>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang 
>>> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone 
>>> has been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a 
>>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
>>>
>>> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's 
>>> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription 
>>> error in dialling my number.
>>>
>>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed 
>>> that they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no 
>>> longer true - unless all you here can think of another way that the 
>>> 1471 service can see an erroneous number.
> 
> I had the same a while ago. Got lots of angry calls on my mobile. For a 
> while I changed my voice mail to tell callers my number was being 
> spoofed. Seems to have stopped being used now.

That's horrible luck.


> 
>>
>> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in 
>> a call.
>>
> 
> I think using a mobile by-passes the regulation, because otherwise it 
> would prevent mobile roaming. Expect more use of mobiles by scammers.

Argh. :-/

> 
>> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the 
>> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer 
>> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.
>>
>>
> I wish others would do that, but of course with a mobile "it might be a 
> friend with a new number" so its tempting to return the call

The friend will call again or leave a whatsapp or SMS.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182976

In article <8kjtalxutn.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, robin_listas@es.invalid 
says...
>

>
>I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in a 
>call.
>
>I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the 
>number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer to 
>let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.

There are regulations, sure, but there are laws against fraud.  
Currently estimated at 40% of all crime in the UK.

-- 
--
Phil, London

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183415

On 2025-03-20 15:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:
>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
> 
> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like 
> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to this 
> post, so they will see your post below.
> 
>>
>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang 
>> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone has 
>> been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a 
>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
>>
>> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's 
>> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error 
>> in dialling my number.
>>
>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed 
>> that they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no longer 
>> true - unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471 
>> service can see an erroneous number.
> 
> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in a 
> call.

Spain has a new regulation. The other day I chanced on a press article saying that Telefónica, the biggest provider here, is activating measures early.

I hope it is true.

Automatic translation by DeepL:


<https://www.servimedia.es/noticias/telefonica-inicia-bloqueo-llamadas-internacionales-fraudulentas-numeracion-espanola/1411571767>

     Telefónica starts blocking fraudulent international calls with Spanish numbers

     - Ahead of the deadline for the ministerial order against telephone scams

     4-5 minutes

     Telefónica has already begun blocking calls and SMS messages with international origin using Spanish numbers except when roaming is permitted, ahead of the deadlines established in the order against telephone scams recently approved by the government.

     The order of the Ministry of Digital Transformation and Public Function came into force on 7 March and establishes a maximum period of three months for operators, until 7 June, to begin blocking calls, but Telefónica has anticipated this date and has already put it into effect, according to sources from the company, which have told Servimedia.

     The aim of the ban on calls and messages with international origins and national numbers is to prevent scams, as this type of communication encourages identity theft by simulating calls from reliable local numbers.

     In order to block these communications, Telefónica has implemented the necessary technical measures to control roaming calls from Movistar customers originating abroad.

     Another measure provided for in the order, which Telefónica has already implemented in compliance with the established deadlines, concerns the detection and blocking of calls and messages that use as a sender a number not assigned to the operators or that enter the user's telephone with an empty sender.

     On the other hand, the order establishes that the CNMC must create a public register of ‘aliases’, or alphanumeric codes that can be used as senders of messages, which includes both the alias and the identification of the operators or messaging service providers authorised to send SMS or MMS using that alias.

     Messages originating from aliases not included in this register will have to be blocked by the messaging providers.

     According to Telefónica, they have already made themselves available to the regulator to work on the project, which in this case has more time for its implementation, until 7 June 2026.

     COMMERCIAL SPAM

     As for measures relating to the identification of customer service calls and unsolicited commercial calls, which are also included in the order as of 7 June 2025, commercial calls from mobile numbers will be prohibited and 800 and 900 numbers will be enabled for commercial calls by call centre staff. Telefónica is also working on this point by contacting customers who may need changes to comply with this requirement.

     Telefónica has been taking various measures to protect its customers from scams for years. Movistar regularly and regularly launches campaigns with a series of recommendations to avoid fraud, as well as disseminating a series of tips and warnings via direct email to the customer, via social networks and/or on the WhatsApp channel.

     In addition, Movistar implements numerous barriers to make it difficult for fraudsters to obtain customer data. One of them consists of securing the change of credentials in the customer area of the website by sending an OTP code (One-Time Password) to the customer's phone with the message ‘If someone is asking you for this code, do not give it to them. They may be cheating you’. This advice makes it clear that the customer must enter it on the website, no one else, and never give it to third parties.


     Telefónica also collaborates with the State Security Forces and Corps to try to dismantle the schemes involved in this type of scam.

     As regards unwanted commercial calls or spam, Movistar does not make them and only contacts potential customers who have requested information in its shops. Even in the latter case, the teleco always applies the stipulations of the internal code of ethics of good practices in terms of days, times, identification of the calling number and the name of both the calling company and the salesperson making the call.

     (SERVIMEDIA)
     06 Apr 2025
     JRN/gja

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182945

On 20/03/2025 12:10, Graham J wrote:
> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
> 
> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang 
> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone has 
> been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a 
> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
> 
> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's 
> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error 
> in dialling my number.
> 
> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed that 
> they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no longer true - 
> unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471 service can 
> see an erroneous number.
> 
> 


She was perhaps a lonely woman who wanted to talk to somebody. There are 
women like that in London area who wants to meet a nice, caring but rich 
young man who can look after her. They make up stories just to talk to 
strangers.

About 6 months ago a woman stopped me at a London Tube station and asked 
me to help her to get food because she hasn't eaten for two days because 
her land lord  has taken her rent money and now she hasn't got anything. 
I just gave her a tenner and left her because I knew what she was up to. 
£10 is nothing for me because I live and work in London but time is 
quite precious for me. I don't have time for drug addicts and alcoholics.

I know I shouldn't be giving money to them but I just didn't want to 
argue with her just in case she has a pimp looking after her watching me.

Scotland has many alcoholics and women are really lonely there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183358

On 21/03/2025 3:31 am, Invalid wrote:
> On 20/03/2025 12:10, Graham J wrote:
>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
>>
>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang
>> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone has
>> been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a
>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
>>
>> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's
>> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error
>> in dialling my number.
>>
>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed that
>> they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no longer true -
>> unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471 service can
>> see an erroneous number.
> 
> She was perhaps a lonely woman who wanted to talk to somebody. There are
> women like that in London area who wants to meet a nice, caring but rich
> young man who can look after her. They make up stories just to talk to
> strangers.
> 
> About 6 months ago a woman stopped me at a London Tube station and asked
> me to help her to get food because she hasn't eaten for two days because
> her land lord  has taken her rent money and now she hasn't got anything.
> I just gave her a tenner and left her because I knew what she was up to.
> £10 is nothing for me because I live and work in London but time is
> quite precious for me. I don't have time for drug addicts and alcoholics.

I don't have time for Druggies or Alcos, either, .... which is why, in 
that position, I'd hope I'd give some of my TIME as well as my money and 
take the person to a sandwich bar for a cuppa and a sandwich or whatever 
and have a meal with them.
> 
> I know I shouldn't be giving money to them but I just didn't want to
> argue with her just in case she has a pimp looking after her watching me.
> 
> Scotland has many alcoholics and women are really lonely there.
> 
I live in a small town (pop 6,500) so rarely see any "street-people" but 
give some of my time (six hours a week) helping out in a Salvation Army 
Thrift Shop raising some money so THEY can do their good works.
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182946

On 3/20/2025 8:10 AM, Graham J wrote:
> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
> 
> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang 
> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone has 
> been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a 
> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
> 
> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's 
> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error 
> in dialling my number.
> 
> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed that 
> they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no longer true - 
> unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471 service can 
> see an erroneous number.
> 
> 
    Not quite the same in the US, but similar. Here spoofed calls
are possible. I've had calls from myself. :) But it could also
be a scam, where someone gets you off balance and defensive,
then pulls some kind of trick.

    Scammers/spammers have become so common that I just
don't even answer the phone anymore unless I recognize the
number. If it's a legit call they can leave a message.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182973

Newyana2 wrote:
> Graham J wrote:
>>
>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
>>
>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang
>> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone has
>> been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a
>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
>>
>> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's
>> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error
>> in dialling my number.
>>
>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed
>> that they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no longer
>> true - unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471
>> service can see an erroneous number.
>
>    Not quite the same in the US, but similar. Here spoofed calls
> are possible. I've had calls from myself. :) But it could also
> be a scam, where someone gets you off balance and defensive,
> then pulls some kind of trick.
> 
>    Scammers/spammers have become so common that I just
> don't even answer the phone anymore unless I recognize the
> number. If it's a legit call they can leave a message.

I add all such calls to my blocked list. Over time, that's helped reduce
spam calls tremendously. Also, I'm like you in that I won't answer a
call from a number I don't recognize.

-- 
John C.

I filter out all crossposts and garbage from trolls.

Take back Microsoft from India

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182978

On 2025-03-21 12:41, John C. wrote:
> Newyana2 wrote:
>> Graham J wrote:
>>>
>>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
>>>
>>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang
>>> her landline earlier this morning.  I did not, and my mobile phone has
>>> been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a
>>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
>>>
>>> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's
>>> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error
>>> in dialling my number.
>>>
>>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed
>>> that they chose unallocated numbers.  That is now apparently no longer
>>> true - unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471
>>> service can see an erroneous number.
>>
>>     Not quite the same in the US, but similar. Here spoofed calls
>> are possible. I've had calls from myself. :) But it could also
>> be a scam, where someone gets you off balance and defensive,
>> then pulls some kind of trick.
>>
>>     Scammers/spammers have become so common that I just
>> don't even answer the phone anymore unless I recognize the
>> number. If it's a legit call they can leave a message.
> 
> I add all such calls to my blocked list. Over time, that's helped reduce
> spam calls tremendously. Also, I'm like you in that I won't answer a
> call from a number I don't recognize.

Unfortunately, as they are faking the caller-id number, and they rotate 
their numbers, you are probably blocking some innocent person, and not 
really blocking the spammers. That said, I also block them.

I also use an application that has a huge list of numbers to block, 
Truecaller.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182979

On 3/21/2025 8:51 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Unfortunately, as they are faking the caller-id number, and they rotate 
> their numbers, you are probably blocking some innocent person, and not 
> really blocking the spammers. That said, I also block them.
> 

     The chance that a number from Columbus, Ohio is a
real person trying to reach me personally is pretty much
zero. Even with the local numbers, a legit caller is very
unlikely.

   This approach is not like what you're describing, blocking
a large list of blacklisted numbers. I just get the call and
wait if I don't recognize the number. If they leave no
message, then I block it. If they leave a message, I pick
up and apologize for screening. They invariably chuckle and
say they understand.

   I haven't found that scammers are rotating through real
numbers. they seem to use thesame ones repeatedly.
Sometimes they spoof, but often it's things like salespeople
using an actual phone. The same number might call several
times per day. So blocking just a few numbers works well
in my experience. I also set my phone for a silent first
ring, so if someone is blocked I don't even have to know it.

(This is on my landline phone/answering machine. I don't
know about cellphones. I don't turn on my Android phone
often enough to care about scam calls. And I don't give out
that number, so I don't check messages.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10

csiph-web