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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #147344 > unrolled thread

Re: OT: spam phone calls

Started by"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
First post2025-03-21 13:51 +0100
Last post2025-05-13 22:55 +1000
Articles 20 on this page of 168 — 31 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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 AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-03-21 16:46 +0000
        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 micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-01 09:17 -0400
              Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-07-02 19:53 +1000
                Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-02 12:35 +0200
                  Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-07-02 22:09 +1000
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-02 20:20 +0200
                      Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-07-03 19:28 +1000
                        Re: OT: spam phone calls David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2025-07-03 12:39 +0100
                Re: OT: spam phone calls Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-07-02 14:40 +0000
                Re: OT: spam phone calls JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2025-07-03 09:05 +0100
                  Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-03 11:33 +0200
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2025-07-03 12:18 +0100
                      Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-03 13:32 +0200
                        Re: OT: spam phone calls NY <me@privacy.net> - 2025-07-03 22:07 +0100
                          Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-04 03:17 +0200
                          Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-07-05 19:03 +0000
                            Re: OT: spam phone calls Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-07-05 21:14 +0000
                              Re: OT: spam phone calls JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2025-07-06 13:21 +0100
                                Re: OT: spam phone calls Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2025-07-06 13:21 +0000
                                Re: OT: spam phone calls Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-07-06 14:03 +0000
                            Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-07-06 18:56 +1000
                              Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-07-06 19:49 +1000
                              Re: OT: spam phone calls tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> - 2025-07-06 19:35 +0100
                                Re: OT: spam phone calls James Heaton <heatonandmoore@gmail.com> - 2025-07-06 19:57 +0100
                            Re: OT: spam phone calls JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2025-07-06 13:18 +0100
                              Re: OT: spam phone calls Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-07-06 14:04 +0000
                              Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-07-07 19:03 +1000
                                Re: OT: spam phone calls "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-07 16:38 +0100
                                  Re: OT: spam phone calls Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-07-07 17:20 +0100
                                    OT: floppies (was: Re: OT: spam phone calls) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-07 17:43 +0100
                      Re: OT: spam phone calls David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2025-07-03 16:26 +0100
                        Tap to pay [Was: Re: OT: spam phone calls] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-03 20:04 +0200
                        Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-07-04 19:35 +1000
                          Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-04 11:46 +0200
                            Re: OT: spam phone calls Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2025-07-04 11:12 +0000
                              Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-04 13:24 +0200
                                Re: OT: spam phone calls "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-05 01:32 +0100
                                  Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-07-05 20:15 +1000
                                  Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-05 19:55 +0200
                  Re: OT: spam phone calls Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-07-03 11:20 +0100
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-03 12:43 +0200
                      Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-07-03 23:00 +1000
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-07-03 20:50 +1000
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-07-03 19:29 +0000
                      Re: OT: spam phone calls "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-07-03 20:55 +0100
                        Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-07-05 19:13 +0000
                      Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-03 22:40 +0200
                        Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-07-05 19:18 +0000
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls NY <me@privacy.net> - 2025-07-03 22:13 +0100
            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 Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-28 23:01 +1000
            Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-28 19:42 +0000
              Re: OT: spam phone calls JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2025-04-28 21:04 +0100
                Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-29 17:37 +0000
                  Re: OT: spam phone calls Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-04-29 20:18 +0200
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 20:54 +0200
                      Re: OT: spam phone calls Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-04-29 21:19 +0200
                        Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-30 19:06 +0000
                          Re: OT: spam phone calls Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-04-30 22:04 +0200
                            Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-01 16:54 +0000
                              Re: OT: spam phone calls Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-05-01 19:01 +0200
                                Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-03 21:30 +1000
                              Re: OT: spam phone calls Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-05-01 18:06 +0000
                          Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-03 21:26 +1000
                            Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-03 14:11 +0200
                            Re: OT: spam phone calls Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2025-05-03 15:08 +0100
                              Re: OT: spam phone calls Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-03 15:04 -0400
                                Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-03 23:41 +0200
                            Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-03 19:26 +0000
                      Re: OT: spam phone calls Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-04-30 06:36 +0200
                        Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-30 09:04 +0200
                        Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-30 19:01 +0000
                          Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-03 21:34 +1000
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-30 18:53 +0000
              Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-29 20:27 +1000
                Re: OT: spam phone calls Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2025-04-29 15:03 +0100
                  Re: OT: spam phone calls Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-04-29 16:21 +0100
                  Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-29 17:58 +0000
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2025-04-30 10:13 +0100
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-01 00:07 +1000
                      Re: OT: spam phone calls Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2025-04-30 15:36 +0100
                        Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-30 18:50 +0000
                          Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-03 21:39 +1000
                            Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-03 19:23 +0000
                  Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 20:09 +0200
                  Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-01 00:02 +1000
                Re: OT: spam phone calls David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2025-04-29 18:30 +0100
                Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-04-29 17:48 +0000
                  Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-03 21:44 +1000
            Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 11:57 +0200
              Re: OT: spam phone calls Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-04-29 11:09 +0100
                Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 12:36 +0200
                  Re: OT: spam phone calls Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-04-29 11:48 +0100
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 13:14 +0200
                      Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-03 21:54 +1000
              Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-29 20:29 +1000
                Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 12:39 +0200
            Re: OT: spam phone calls Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-30 13:36 +0000
              Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-03 21:56 +1000
            Re: OT: spam phone calls JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2025-05-24 10:17 +0100
              Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-24 17:05 +0000
    Re: OT: spam phone calls AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-03-21 16:10 +0000
      Re: OT: spam phone calls micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-03-21 12:34 -0400
        Re: OT: spam phone calls AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-03-21 16:52 +0000
      Re: OT: spam phone calls Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-03-21 16:48 +0000
        Re: OT: spam phone calls AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-03-21 17:11 +0000
    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 Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-29 21:23 +1000
                  Re: OT: spam phone calls Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-04-28 19:13 +0100
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-04-28 18:59 +0000
                      Re: OT: spam phone calls Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-29 18:37 +0000
                        Browser lockup and other various subjects... AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-04-29 21:49 +0000
                          Re: Browser lockup and other various subjects... Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-30 14:43 +0000
                            Re: Browser lockup and other various subjects... AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-04-30 16:39 +0000
                              Re: Browser lockup and other various subjects... Siard <xx@xx.invalid> - 2025-04-30 23:24 +0200
                                Re: Browser lockup and other various subjects... AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-04-30 22:00 +0000
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2025-04-28 21:19 +0100
                    Re: OT: spam phone calls knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-28 16:51 -0400
                      Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 12:42 +0200
                        Re: OT: spam phone calls Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2025-04-29 11:35 +0000
                          Re: OT: spam phone calls Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-04-29 15:35 +0100
                            Re: OT: spam phone calls Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2025-04-29 15:06 +0000
                              Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 20:15 +0200
                          Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-29 20:17 +0200
                        Re: OT: spam phone calls JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2025-04-29 12:57 +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 Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-13 22:52 +1000
          Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-13 17:04 +0000
            Re: OT: spam phone calls AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-05-13 18:05 +0000
              Re: OT: spam phone calls Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-05-13 19:33 +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 Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2025-04-28 19:10 +0100
        Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-13 22:55 +1000

Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9  Next page →

#147371

FromNewyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam>
Date2025-03-22 13:24 -0400
Message-ID<vrmrml$dps3$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#147370
On 3/22/2025 1:06 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:

> I got my first shots in Mar 2021. I had to make a reservation on a website
> (there were limited ones available) and show the email acknowledgment
> (printout) to get in.
> 
    That sounds familiar. I think I did similar the first time. But
then by the 3rd time or so they had streamlined it and wanted
a cellphone. I don't remember why. I suppose they were just
cracking down on IDs.

    I got 4 shots in all. Then I realized that I should have bought
Pfizer stock instead. It was clearly what my father used to call
"a real racket". :)

> I always considered SMS to be for things that don't require immediate
> response.

     My assumption these days is that it's like an open line.
An ongoing conversation. I have a Millennial niece who usually
doesn't answer email. One day I texted her as a joke. She
was right there!

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

#147377

FromJörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
Date2025-03-22 22:43 +0100
Message-ID<vrnau1$8hsa$1@solani.org>
In reply to#147371
On 22.03.25 18:24, Newyana2 wrote:
>      My assumption these days is that it's like an open line.
> An ongoing conversation. I have a Millennial niece who usually
> doesn't answer email. One day I texted her as a joke. She
> was right there!

Why do you think these services are called "Instant Messaging"?
Once more one of these bizarre geriatric threads.
Heaven help!


-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

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

#147376

FromDavid Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
Date2025-03-22 20:36 +0000
Message-ID<vrn6vl$bs2v$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#147370
On 22/03/2025 17:06, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 12:10:58 -0400, Newyana2 wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>     It's similar here. Cellphones are increasingly required for
>> some transactions. When we got COVID shots during the pandemic, I had to
>> stand in the old losers' line and show my drivers license to an
>> impatient college student because I didn't have the data on a cellphone.
>> It wasn't too bad,
>> though. My hair is gray enough that they just assume I'm a dimwitted old
>> man and most of them put up with me.
> 
> I got my first shots in Mar 2021. I had to make a reservation on a website
> (there were limited ones available) and show the email acknowledgment
> (printout) to get in.
> 
>>      I currently have a landline that's VOIP. I think it costs
>> $16/month. Why? Because it's convenient. The sound is good. It has a
>> handy answering machine. I don't have to charge it. People call me from
>> their cellphones and want to pretend that it works well. It doesn't. The
>> sound is often poor.
> 

That sounds very expensive to me. I pay £3.60/Month so about $5.00 but I 
have a Fritz!box router with built-in voip and answerphone. I don't get 
any calls for that but I do have a calls package on my mobile.


> Yes, that's what I have too (over fiber). I changed from the old copper
> lines in about 2006 because of the poor call quality.
> 
>>      My $40 TracFone costs me $20 every 3 months. I keep
>> it in my glove compartment, turned off. If I need to make a call when
>> away from home, I use it. Why do I do that?
>> Because I don't want people to be able to text me. I don't want people
>> interrupting when I'm doing errands or taking a walk. I'm not a surgeon
>> or a drug dealer. Anyone trying to reach me can wait until I get home. I
>> also don't shop online via cellphone. 

I shop. My wife always forgets something and rings me. Or we go to 
different stores and compare.


I don't use Ubers. I don't call
>> DoorDash. I don't use apps. I know how to read a map. I don't like the
>> way that cellphones collapse space/time. If I'm out walking in the
>> woods, enjoying spring sunlight, I have no interest in someone
>> interrupting me to ask if I want to bid on a job or meet next Tuesday
>> for coffee. That can wait until I get home.
> 

No but I want to take pictures for me and the family. See how long it 
took me, remember last time I went. I use the Waze in the car. It shows 
me the traffic, roadworks. The phone has an answerphone. Its usually on 
silent. I don't use UBER but I do use the local Taxi firm. using their 
app shows me where the nearest cab is.


> I always considered SMS to be for things that don't require immediate
> response.
> 

I thought that, but we do now shop on-line and the card we use wants 
either verification via an SMS or via their App.

Dave

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

#147568

Frommicky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
Date2025-04-03 08:27 -0400
Message-ID<ghvsuj9f9hv3uve2kbbr3cjq82j3cic4qr@4ax.com>
In reply to#147376
In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 22 Mar 2025 20:36:05 +0000, David Wade
<g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:

>
>No but I want to take pictures for me and the family. See how long it 

I forgot about that.  I take pictures too sometimes or videos. 

>took me, remember last time I went. I use the Waze in the car. It shows 

Waze is mostly about directions.  I'm more about, Whare am I. So I use
google maps and sometimes that other one with the strange name. 

>me the traffic, roadworks. The phone has an answerphone. Its usually on 
>silent. I don't use UBER but I do use the local Taxi firm. using their 
>app shows me where the nearest cab is.
>

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

#147564

Frommicky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
Date2025-04-03 08:22 -0400
Message-ID<3jusuj1c9tct3t9hg79on0452mdj9u2lbb@4ax.com>
In reply to#147367
In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 22 Mar 2025 12:10:58 -0400, Newyana2
<newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
>   It's similar here. Cellphones are increasingly required for
>some transactions. When we got COVID shots during the
>pandemic, I had to stand in the old losers' line and show
>my drivers license to an impatient college student because
>I didn't have the data on a cellphone. 

One thing I should do is pot my neighbors' phone numbers and some other
stuff in my cell.  I was in the emergendcy room one night and my new
laptop was being delivered by UPS the next day.  I wanted to change the
delivery address to a neighbor, but I didn't know who would be home and
who wouldn't and didn't have their numbers.  Or when I'm out of town and
want someone to check on my house.  Now the numbers are in my pc that
sits on my desk, and my laptop but I didn't have that with me in the ER.
>It wasn't too bad,
>though. My hair is gray enough that they just assume I'm
>a dimwitted old man and most of them put up with me.
>
>    I currently have a landline that's VOIP. I think it costs
>$16/month. Why? Because it's convenient. The sound is
>good. It has a handy answering machine. I don't have

yes, exactly, and my phone in the office bedroom also has 3 corless
phones, one for the sleeping bedroom, one for hte kitchen, and one for
the basement, so i don't have to run upstairs if the phone rings.  And I
certainly don't want to carry the cellphone around all day in my house,
especially if I'm only wearing underwear with no pockets. 

>to charge it. People call me from their cellphones and want
>to pretend that it works well. It doesn't. The sound is
>often poor.
>
>    My $40 TracFone costs me $20 every 3 months. I keep
>it in my glove compartment, turned off. If I need to make
>a call when away from home, I use it. Why do I do that?
>Because I don't want people to be able to text me. I don't
>want people interrupting when I'm doing errands or taking
>a walk. I'm not a surgeon or a drug dealer. Anyone trying to
>reach me can wait until I get home. I also don't shop online
>via cellphone. I don't use Ubers. I don't call DoorDash. I

I do use it for taxis once in a while. 

>don't use apps. I know how to read a map. I don't like the
>way that cellphones collapse space/time. If I'm out walking
>in the woods, enjoying spring sunlight, I have no interest
>in someone interrupting me to ask if I want to bid on a job
>or meet next Tuesday for coffee. That can wait until I get
>home.

Not counting those who text me a code for 2-stage authorization, only 3
people have my cellphone number, and 2 of them never call me.  One
person calls me 5 evenings a week, m-f, to chat and if I'm not home, she
calls my cell.  It's hard to concentrate on the phone call when I'm not
at my desk, with notes, but I do my best. 

>   I think it's gradually become a lifestyle thing. People are
>living through their cellphones, like a kind of cockpit. That's
>their home. For young people it's constant connection. It's
>become normal to see people walking down the street fixated
>on their cellphone.

I had to kill 3 h ours at the Dallas airport last month, after retuning
the rental car and not wanting to pay another day for the sake of 2
hours. And for only the second time I read my email on  the phone and
for the first itme, I replied to one  I had an appointment with him for
the next day and he wanted to move it to the 3 days later. 

It also used to be good in doctors' offices since they've taken away the
magazines.  But I've stopped reading the news. 

>   Awhile back I said something to my girlfriend's 50 year old son
>about how he seems very busy at night on his cellphone. I
>though he was texting friends. Or maybe Facebooking? No.
>He said he spends hours on dating sites, swiping, chatting
>and occasionally getting laid. It's interesting to me how different
>people use their cellphones. Some are just constantly scrolling
>Instagram and begin to get anxious if they put their cellphone
>in their pocket. The online theater has become more real for
>them than their actual life.
>
>   So I don't think it has much to do with telephoning anymore.
>Most people don't really need to get phone calls when away
>from home. They just like the mobile lifestyle. And increasingly
>it's an inclusive lifestyle. It's a different way of living.
>
>    Some time
>ago I stopped a young woman in another city. I was slightly
>lost. "Do you happen to know if this cross street is Powers St?"
>She was very nice. She'd been walking, holding her cellphone,
>earphones in. After a moment she told me, yes, it's Powers St.
>It wasn't until sometime later that I realized she had looked
>it up! By asking a simple, common question I had told her that
>I didn't have a cellphone. She would never imagine asking anyone.
>I would never imagine being able to look it up while out walking.
>She was walking in Apple's music app. I was walking on a maple-
>lined street during summer, looking at a variety of architecture
>styles. Neither of us regarded the other's world as relevant.

I take my smartphone with me when I'm  out.  I often use the map.  But
only one person every calls me, usually at 6:15pm, M-F. 

And when I was abroad, I used it to listen to English language radio,
which didn't exist there.

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

#147560

Frommicky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
Date2025-04-03 08:07 -0400
Message-ID<o3usujtgs8na3qg9ho0mo51s59ieviqded@4ax.com>
In reply to#147364
In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 22 Mar 2025 14:53:52 +0100, "Carlos
E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 2025-03-21 17:32, micky wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 21 Mar 2025 11:23:42 -0400, Newyana2
>> <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.)
>> 
>> You're a lot like me.   I use my landline 95% of the time.  I only turn
>> on the cell when I go out, and not even always then.   Only 4 pople have
>> my cellphone number and 3 of them have probably lost it. (When I was
>> visiting my brother, a friend of his, his wife, and his son, all called
>> me, but they called me on my home phone, not my cell!  And didn't get
>> the messages until I got home. )
>
>Over here, people use the landline less and less. Young people don't 
>even have one. Nobody I know phones me on the land line, except my very 
>old neighbours who are unable to manage a mobile.

When I visited my brother and sister in law a year ago,  they both
called me, on the landline, in Baltimore, even though I was in Florida
staying with them.   And they both had my cell phone number because I
called to see if they were picking me up at the airport.  Because they
assume I only have one phone and one number, even though my brother
should know that's not true. 
>
>Of the people that do have a landline, many keep it because the internet 
>supplier is a phone company and forces them to have a landline. Some 
>then unplug it.

I have Verizon for internet, and for the phone.  I turned down cable TV.
I could have turned down the phone but I want it.  I don't like holding
the cell phone, and it's not loud enough, even the speaker phone.  In
the car it connects to the car (I added bluetooth to the car radio
myself) and at home I often use a bluetooth speakerphone:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0C9TH3H64?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_dt_b_fed_asin_title_4
I should have bought this earlier. It's great. 

>I actually redirect my landline to a mobile, which then runs an antispam 
>app.

I would like to redirect my mobile to my landline, but then I'd have to
undo each time I left the house with the phone.

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

#147566

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2025-04-03 14:19 +0200
Message-ID<7va2clxjk3.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#147560
On 2025-04-03 14:07, micky wrote:
> I would like to redirect my mobile to my landline, but then I'd have to
> undo each time I left the house with the phone.

There is a redirect if no answer

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#147578

Frommicky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
Date2025-04-03 09:14 -0400
Message-ID<u52tujllhu550rnopdfqaobag68p33cf4e@4ax.com>
In reply to#147566
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:19:19 +0200, "Carlos
E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 2025-04-03 14:07, micky wrote:
>> I would like to redirect my mobile to my landline, but then I'd have to
>> undo each time I left the house with the phone.
>
>There is a redirect if no answer

Oh, of course.  That would be good.  Except if it forwarded spam calls
that now leave no trace. 

My current cellphhone outgoing messsage says, "I can go days or weeks
without turning on my cellphone so don't leave a message until you know
I'm expecting you to call."   Unfortuantely, when I was in Dallas, and
it was my only phone, someone I wanted to hear from didn't leave a
message because of what my message said.

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

#147586

FromJörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
Date2025-04-03 18:10 +0200
Message-ID<vsmbsv$nr9q$2@solani.org>
In reply to#147578
On 03.04.25 15:14, micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:19:19 +0200, "Carlos
> E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-04-03 14:07, micky wrote:
>>> I would like to redirect my mobile to my landline, but then I'd have to
>>> undo each time I left the house with the phone.
>>
>> There is a redirect if no answer
> 
> Oh, of course.  That would be good.  Except if it forwarded spam calls
> that now leave no trace.
> 
> My current cellphhone outgoing messsage says, "I can go days or weeks
> without turning on my cellphone so don't leave a message until you know
> I'm expecting you to call."   Unfortuantely, when I was in Dallas, and
> it was my only phone, someone I wanted to hear from didn't leave a
> message because of what my message said.

He or she did exactly what you stupid requested from this person.

-- 
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

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

#148208

FromDaniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org>
Date2025-04-28 23:01 +1000
Message-ID<vunu6q$3bkcc$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#147364
On 23/03/2025 12:53 am, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-03-21 17:32, micky wrote:

<Snip>

>> You're a lot like me.   I use my landline 95% of the time.  I only turn
>> on the cell when I go out, and not even always then.   Only 4 pople have
>> my cellphone number and 3 of them have probably lost it. (When I was
>> visiting my brother, a friend of his, his wife, and his son, all called
>> me, but they called me on my home phone, not my cell!  And didn't get
>> the messages until I got home. )
> 
> Over here, people use the landline less and less. Young people don't 
> even have one. Nobody I know phones me on the land line, except my very 
> old neighbours who are unable to manage a mobile.
> 
> Of the people that do have a landline, many keep it because the internet 
> supplier is a phone company and forces them to have a landline. Some 
> then unplug it.
> 
> I actually redirect my landline to a mobile, which then runs an antispam 
> app.
> 
I have a landline phone which is actually plugged into the socket on the 
wall in my Bedroom.

When I moved into this house, just about all the phone calls I got on 
the landline were from Spammers so I installed an "Answerphone" on the 
Landline. That way, when that phone rang, I could wait to see if it is a 
"Real" call or just Spammers.

Now-a-days, apart from the Spammers .... just about the only time I 
actually use the Landline is when I've misplaced my mobile so I can give 
it a call. ;-P
-- 
Daniel70

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

#148213

FromMark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid>
Date2025-04-28 19:42 +0000
Message-ID<680fda14$0$16738$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to#148208
[snip]

> When I moved into this house, just about all the phone calls I got on
> the landline were from Spammers so I installed an "Answerphone" on the
> Landline. That way, when that phone rang, I could wait to see if it is a
> "Real" call or just Spammers.

If I'm close enough I look at the caller ID to see if its something 
reasonable. Now most of the junk calls have the caller ID name set equal 
to the number.

BTW, they almost never leave a message. I consider that as indicating a 
lack of confidence in what they're selling, as if they know that anybody 
who's had time to think about it would say no. 

I do that on the cell phone too, although the lack of caller ID NAME is a 
serious disadvantage compared to the home phone.

> Now-a-days, apart from the Spammers .... just about the only time I
> actually use the Landline is when I've misplaced my mobile so I can give
> it a call. ;-P

Yes, I do use it that way.

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

"The intellectual advancement of man depends on how often he can
exchange an old superstition for a new truth." [Robert G. Ingersoll]

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

#148214

FromJMB99 <mb@nospam.net>
Date2025-04-28 21:04 +0100
Message-ID<vuomvt$2g0c$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#148213
On 28/04/2025 20:42, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> I do that on the cell phone too, although the lack of caller ID NAME is a
> serious disadvantage compared to the home phone.

Where do 'home phones' put out the caller's name on the CLID?

I think most people would not want their name disclosed to strangers.

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

#148246

FromMark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid>
Date2025-04-29 17:37 +0000
Message-ID<68110e3c$0$20$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to#148214
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 21:04:13 +0100, JMB99 wrote:

> On 28/04/2025 20:42, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> I do that on the cell phone too, although the lack of caller ID NAME is
>> a serious disadvantage compared to the home phone.
> 
> Where do 'home phones' put out the caller's name on the CLID?

It's a useful feature, often a quick way to identify to identify scam 
calls. I have gotten calls identified as from "TELEPHONE TX". There is 
actually such a town. It's very small, and probably has nothing to do with 
the scammer. I've been told that that's what's displayed if the number is 
not recognized. More recently, most of these calls have the name just a 
copy of the number.

> I think most people would not want their name disclosed to strangers.

If you want to be private, there's a way to disable it (I don't remember 
how right now, other than you dial '*' plus a 2-digit code). The 
recipient's CID display will show something like "anonymous" or "private.

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

We provide a special tax-reducing savings account for very rich people.
-30% interest.

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

#148253

FromJörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
Date2025-04-29 20:18 +0200
Message-ID<vur56c$1j4l$1@solani.org>
In reply to#148246
On 29.04.25 19:37, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> If you want to be private, there's a way to disable it (I don't remember 
> how right now, other than you dial '*' plus a 2-digit code). The 
> recipient's CID display will show something like "anonymous" or "private.

I never accepted such calls in the past. In the webinterface of our
provider we can set this function to drop such calls automatically. They
never reach the called person.

-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

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

#148257

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2025-04-29 20:54 +0200
Message-ID<2tj7elx5sa.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#148253
On 2025-04-29 20:18, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 29.04.25 19:37, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> If you want to be private, there's a way to disable it (I don't remember
>> how right now, other than you dial '*' plus a 2-digit code). The
>> recipient's CID display will show something like "anonymous" or "private.
> 
> I never accepted such calls in the past. In the webinterface of our
> provider we can set this function to drop such calls automatically. They
> never reach the called person.
> 

The problem is that at the other side of the pond, phones do not just 
send their number, they also send the name of the owner. And some people 
obviously do not like this.

On Europe phones just send the number. Certainly, many people restrict 
anonymous calls.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#148259

FromJörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
Date2025-04-29 21:19 +0200
Message-ID<vur8ok$1kii$1@solani.org>
In reply to#148257
On 29.04.25 20:54, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-04-29 20:18, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 29.04.25 19:37, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>> If you want to be private, there's a way to disable it (I don't remember
>>> how right now, other than you dial '*' plus a 2-digit code). The
>>> recipient's CID display will show something like "anonymous" or "private.
>>
>> I never accepted such calls in the past. In the webinterface of our
>> provider we can set this function to drop such calls automatically. They
>> never reach the called person.
>>
> 
> The problem is that at the other side of the pond, phones do not just 
> send their number, they also send the name of the owner. And some people 
> obviously do not like this.

Applies to the Swiss networks as well in case the handset supports these
functions. If someone tries to reach me it is not really super clever to
suppress name and/or number. I never talk to persons who do not disclose
their number and name. That also applies to the mobile services.

Even banks started to show their numbers/names again because with
suppressed numbers/names the majority of their calls failed.

> On Europe phones just send the number. Certainly, many people restrict 
> anonymous calls.

In CH numbers and names are shown on landline calls,
BTW: Providers are forced by law to offer filters to eliminate spam
calls especially of call centers and the like. This is an opt in-function.

The interface even allows to define specific filter to block calls from
certain numbers or number blocks. For example the filter "+2*" blocks
all calls from Africa (=Zone 2). That is just an example.


-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

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

#148287

FromMark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid>
Date2025-04-30 19:06 +0000
Message-ID<68127499$0$13$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to#148259
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 21:19:48 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:

[spam]

> In CH numbers and names are shown on landline calls,
> BTW: Providers are forced by law to offer filters to eliminate spam
> calls especially of call centers and the like. This is an opt
> in-function.
> 
> The interface even allows to define specific filter to block calls from
> certain numbers or number blocks. For example the filter "+2*" blocks
> all calls from Africa (=Zone 2). That is just an example.

Here, I find number-based blocking to be nearly useless. The junk callers 
keep changing the number too much. NAME-based blocking that allows regular 
expressions could block most of the junk calls I get. If it blocked calls 
with the name field containing ten digits, that would get a lot of them.

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

"My God, it's full of stars!"

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

#148288

FromJörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
Date2025-04-30 22:04 +0200
Message-ID<vutvob$2tbj$1@solani.org>
In reply to#148287
On 30.04.25 21:06, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 21:19:48 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> 
> [spam]
> 
>> In CH numbers and names are shown on landline calls,
>> BTW: Providers are forced by law to offer filters to eliminate spam
>> calls especially of call centers and the like. This is an opt
>> in-function.
>>
>> The interface even allows to define specific filter to block calls from
>> certain numbers or number blocks. For example the filter "+2*" blocks
>> all calls from Africa (=Zone 2). That is just an example.
> 
> Here, I find number-based blocking to be nearly useless. The junk callers 
> keep changing the number too much. NAME-based blocking that allows regular 
> expressions could block most of the junk calls I get. If it blocked calls 
> with the name field containing ten digits, that would get a lot of them.

Number blocking works very well here. The reason being to be able to
white-list as well.

I block the zones 1,2,5,6,7 and 8.

For zone 1 there exists a lengthy whitelist because our family has a
couple of friends and relatives in the USA. My wife is American and she
grew up there.

In the zones 3 and 4 I figured out in a couple of cases which number
blocks are problematic or which countries. The UK is blocked and only a
couple of numbers whitelisted because the UK is an important source of
international phone-spam.

At the national level 500 numbers after the area codes are usually the
source of spam calls by call centers or organisations doing "opinion polls".

The efforts of the provider and the tools he offers and my extensive
filtering have led to an almost spam free LL. And the policy is not to
answer calls with unknown numbers and let them talk to the voice box.

Fact is that our private calls are done with our mobiles most of the time.


-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

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

#148291

FromMark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid>
Date2025-05-01 16:54 +0000
Message-ID<6813a730$0$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to#148288
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 22:04:27 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:

[snip]

> Number blocking works very well here. The reason being to be able to
> white-list as well.

A white list is what I had to do, considering no access to name blocking. 
The device would respond to unknown numbers with a message to "press 0 and 
call back", and some people would actually do that. Most (if not all) 
robocallers don't.

[snip]

> Fact is that our private calls are done with our mobiles most of the
> time.

Most of mine are too. However, a majority of junk callers use the home 
phone.

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

"I am not a number. I am a free man." -- No. 6

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

#148292

FromJörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
Date2025-05-01 19:01 +0200
Message-ID<vv09dh$424i$1@solani.org>
In reply to#148291
On 01.05.25 18:54, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 22:04:27 +0200, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> Fact is that our private calls are done with our mobiles most of the
>> time.
> 
> Most of mine are too. However, a majority of junk callers use the home 
> phone.

Same is true here.
So far zero spam-calls on mobiles even with default settings. Knock on wood!


-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

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

Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web