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

#147348

FromAJL <noemail@none.com>
Date2025-03-21 16:10 +0000
Message-ID<vrk30s$1t5t8$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#147344
On 3/21/25 5:51 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>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.


I simply use Do Not Disturb, a feature that came on my 5 year old Galaxy
 S10+ phone. If the number is not in my contact list the phone won't ring
 but will send it to Voicemail. I have Voicemail set to beep once so I can
 check it if I'm nearby. Dunno how many new phones still have this feature.
 So important calls like family, doctors, etc. get through but otherwise
 not. To my surprise looking at the missed calls list I've found that only
 around 1 in 10 non-contact (junk) calls leave a Voicemail, and even then I
 can easily dispatch it after listening only a few seconds, so IMO I'm ahead
 in the battle. YMMV...

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

#147350

Frommicky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
Date2025-03-21 12:34 -0400
Message-ID<g65rtj16m54j29rm140chudppgqikmb24e@4ax.com>
In reply to#147348
In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:10:04 -0000 (UTC), AJL
<noemail@none.com> wrote:

>
>
>I simply use Do Not Disturb, a feature that came on my 5 year old Galaxy
> S10+ phone. If the number is not in my contact list the phone won't ring
> but will send it to Voicemail. I have Voicemail set to beep once so I can
> check it if I'm nearby. Dunno how many new phones still have this feature.

I thought they all did?  Not that I have experience with new phones. 

> So important calls like family, doctors, etc. get through but otherwise
> not. To my surprise looking at the missed calls list I've found that only
> around 1 in 10 non-contact (junk) calls leave a Voicemail, and even then I
> can easily dispatch it after listening only a few seconds, so IMO I'm ahead
> in the battle. YMMV...

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

#147353

FromAJL <noemail@none.com>
Date2025-03-21 16:52 +0000
Message-ID<vrk5g1$1v9op$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#147350
On 3/21/25 9:34 AM, micky wrote:
>In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:10:04 -0000 (UTC), AJL
><noemail@none.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I simply use Do Not Disturb, a feature that came on my 5 year old Galaxy
>> S10+ phone. If the number is not in my contact list the phone won't ring
>> but will send it to Voicemail. I have Voicemail set to beep once so I can
>> check it if I'm nearby. Dunno how many new phones still have this feature.
>
>I thought they all did?  Not that I have experience with new phones. 

Same here. As I said it's been 5+ years since I've fondled a new one...

>
>> So important calls like family, doctors, etc. get through but otherwise
>> not. To my surprise looking at the missed calls list I've found that only
>> around 1 in 10 non-contact (junk) calls leave a Voicemail, and even then I
>> can easily dispatch it after listening only a few seconds, so IMO I'm ahead
>> in the battle. YMMV...

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

#147352

FromFrank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
Date2025-03-21 16:48 +0000
Message-ID<vrk8om.u0g.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
In reply to#147348
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
[...]

> I simply use Do Not Disturb, a feature that came on my 5 year old Galaxy
>  S10+ phone. If the number is not in my contact list the phone won't ring
>  but will send it to Voicemail. I have Voicemail set to beep once so I can
>  check it if I'm nearby. Dunno how many new phones still have this feature.

  I don't use/need it, but I've just checked on my Samsung Galaxy A51
(Android 13) phone and the 'Phone' app has a setting ('Block numbers' ->)
'Block calls from unknown numbers'.

  I haven't turned that on, so I don't know what it does exactly -
redirect to voicemail? log the number/timestamp? other? -, but at least
it seems to *be* a do-not-disturb setting, however it's not named as
such.

  Of course there are also general 'Do not disturb' settings, but they
also cover app notifications and alarms and sounds, not just calls and
messages.

>  So important calls like family, doctors, etc. get through but otherwise
>  not. To my surprise looking at the missed calls list I've found that only
>  around 1 in 10 non-contact (junk) calls leave a Voicemail, and even then I
>  can easily dispatch it after listening only a few seconds, so IMO I'm ahead
>  in the battle. YMMV...

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

#147355

FromAJL <noemail@none.com>
Date2025-03-21 17:11 +0000
Message-ID<vrk6j8$208h1$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#147352
On 3/21/25 9:48 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>[...]
>
>> I simply use Do Not Disturb, a feature that came on my 5 year old Galaxy
>>  S10+ phone. If the number is not in my contact list the phone won't ring
>>  but will send it to Voicemail. I have Voicemail set to beep once so I can
>>  check it if I'm nearby. Dunno how many new phones still have this feature.
>
>  I don't use/need it, but I've just checked on my Samsung Galaxy A51
>(Android 13) phone and the 'Phone' app has a setting ('Block numbers' ->)
>'Block calls from unknown numbers'.

That sounds like my Do Not Disturb IF they're also sent to Voicemail.

My S10+ also allows blocking of individual numbers as they come in but I
 quickly found that a waste of time since spam always changes numbers

>  I haven't turned that on, so I don't know what it does exactly -
>redirect to voicemail? log the number/timestamp? other? -, but at least
>it seems to *be* a do-not-disturb setting, however it's not named as
>such.

DND bounced numbers also show up on my lockscreen so I can check further if
 curious...


>  Of course there are also general 'Do not disturb' settings, but they
>also cover app notifications and alarms and sounds, not just calls and
>messages.

Yup. Perhaps the main reason I don't want a new phone is having to learn how
 to use it...  :-/

>
>>  So important calls like family, doctors, etc. get through but otherwise
>>  not. To my surprise looking at the missed calls list I've found that only
>>  around 1 in 10 non-contact (junk) calls leave a Voicemail, and even then I
>>  can easily dispatch it after listening only a few seconds, so IMO I'm ahead
>>  in the battle. YMMV...

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

#147356

FromMark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid>
Date2025-03-21 18:11 +0000
Message-ID<67ddabcc$0$16738$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to#147344
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:51:34 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

[snip]

> 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've tried blocking numbers. If helps with some things (like charities 
that seem to think I'm an ATM) but doesn't help with spammers (too many 
numbers).

I seldom answer spam calls on my home phone because of caller ID NAME (the 
current usual pattern for spammers is the name is a copy of the number). I 
really wish cell phones would provide that. I probably miss some real 
calls by ignoring unknown numbers.

[snip]

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

"They are not jackbooted Nazi thugs. They are merely German policemen in
spiffy uniforms here to help us." - Vichy government (1941 - 1945)

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

#147569

Frommicky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
Date2025-04-03 08:28 -0400
Message-ID<cmvsujt7au6qn4rsppf3kdjeu36g3jt7kr@4ax.com>
In reply to#147356
In comp.mobile.android, on 21 Mar 2025 18:11:24 GMT, Mark Lloyd
<not.email@all.invalid> wrote:

>
>I've tried blocking numbers. If helps with some things (like charities 
>that seem to think I'm an ATM) but doesn't help with spammers (too many 
>numbers).

Oh yeah, another advantage to not turning the cell phone on.  I don't
get many spam calls even when it's on, but I get none when it's off.  
>
>I seldom answer spam calls on my home phone because of caller ID NAME (the 
>current usual pattern for spammers is the name is a copy of the number). I 
>really wish cell phones would provide that. I probably miss some real 
>calls by ignoring unknown numbers.

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

#147570

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2025-04-03 14:37 +0200
Message-ID<91c2clx7i7.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#147569
On 2025-04-03 14:28, micky wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on 21 Mar 2025 18:11:24 GMT, Mark Lloyd
> <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>
>> I've tried blocking numbers. If helps with some things (like charities
>> that seem to think I'm an ATM) but doesn't help with spammers (too many
>> numbers).
> 
> Oh yeah, another advantage to not turning the cell phone on.  I don't
> get many spam calls even when it's on, but I get none when it's off.

We use "do not disturb" mode or airplane mode. Or, use features like do 
not ring if not in address book.

>>
>> I seldom answer spam calls on my home phone because of caller ID NAME (the
>> current usual pattern for spammers is the name is a copy of the number). I
>> really wish cell phones would provide that. I probably miss some real
>> calls by ignoring unknown numbers.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#147692

FromDaniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org>
Date2025-04-08 21:55 +1000
Message-ID<vt32s7$2628d$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#147344
On 21/03/2025 11:51 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-03-21 12:41, John C. wrote:

<Snip>

>> 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.
> 
For some weird reason my Landline phone socket wasn't installed in the 
Lounge/Kitchen/Dinning-room but in the main bedroom instead!

After a couple of weeks of mad-dashes from the Lounge into the Bedroom 
when the phone rang, only to find it was a Spammer caller calling, I 
brought a Wireless Phone WITH Built-in Answer machine.

Now, when the Landline rings, I just let it ring ... until the Answer 
Machine starts up and, more often than not, when my Answer Machine 
starts up, the calling person/machine/whatever hangs up. ;-)
-- 
Daniel70

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

#147693

From"Alan K." <alan@invalid.com>
Date2025-04-08 08:10 -0400
Message-ID<vt33nb$24gb9$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#147692
On 4/8/25 07:55 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
> On 21/03/2025 11:51 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-03-21 12:41, John C. wrote:
> 
> <Snip>
> 
>>> 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.
>>
> For some weird reason my Landline phone socket wasn't installed in the Lounge/Kitchen/ 
> Dinning-room but in the main bedroom instead!
> 
> After a couple of weeks of mad-dashes from the Lounge into the Bedroom when the phone 
> rang, only to find it was a Spammer caller calling, I brought a Wireless Phone WITH Built- 
> in Answer machine.
> 
> Now, when the Landline rings, I just let it ring ... until the Answer Machine starts up 
> and, more often than not, when my Answer Machine starts up, the calling person/machine/ 
> whatever hangs up. ;-)
We do a similar thing.  Our phone/answering machine speaks the caller ID and/or number. 
If the person is in the built in phone book, the phone will speak their name as we entered 
it, and not some cryptic caller ID.  Still, if the ID is some 4 digit number and no name, 
we know it's a scammer.

-- 
Linux Mint 22.1, Cinnamon 6.4.8,  Kernel 6.8.0-57-generic
Thunderbird 128.9.0esr, Mozilla Firefox 137.0
     Alan K.

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

#147694

FromDavey <davey@example.invalid>
Date2025-04-08 13:52 +0100
Message-ID<vt366j$28v73$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#147693
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 08:10:19 -0400
"Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 4/8/25 07:55 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
> > On 21/03/2025 11:51 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:  
> >> On 2025-03-21 12:41, John C. wrote:  
> > 
> > <Snip>
> >   
> >>> 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. 
> > For some weird reason my Landline phone socket wasn't installed in
> > the Lounge/Kitchen/ Dinning-room but in the main bedroom instead!
> > 
> > After a couple of weeks of mad-dashes from the Lounge into the
> > Bedroom when the phone rang, only to find it was a Spammer caller
> > calling, I brought a Wireless Phone WITH Built- in Answer machine.
> > 
> > Now, when the Landline rings, I just let it ring ... until the
> > Answer Machine starts up and, more often than not, when my Answer
> > Machine starts up, the calling person/machine/ whatever hangs up.
> > ;-)  
> We do a similar thing.  Our phone/answering machine speaks the caller
> ID and/or number. If the person is in the built in phone book, the
> phone will speak their name as we entered it, and not some cryptic
> caller ID.  Still, if the ID is some 4 digit number and no name, we
> know it's a scammer.
> 

Recently, I have noticed that spammer calls tend to have my local area
code preceding the rest of the spoofed number, but I also let the
answering machine part of the DECT system offer to record the caller's
information, which indeed usually results in a cleared line. Serious
people leave a message.

-- 
Davey.

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

#147699

FromMark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid>
Date2025-04-08 20:33 +0000
Message-ID<67f5882a$0$20$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to#147694
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 13:52:35 +0100, Davey wrote:

[snip]

> Recently, I have noticed that spammer calls tend to have my local area
> code preceding the rest of the spoofed number, but I also let the
> answering machine part of the DECT system offer to record the caller's
> information, which indeed usually results in a cleared line. Serious
> people leave a message.

I get spoofed numbers with a wide variety of area codes, although possibly 
more of my local area code. If the caller's name is given as a number, I 
NEVER have a message from those.

I've had very few junk callers leave a message. One way to tell is if the 
first couple of seconds are missing, since those robocallers seem to be 
unable to wait for the beep. You get something like "...ficer. You are 
being..." (The missing part was probably "This is of", and there was no 
officer's name). This is from a scam that claimed I owed the IRS, and need 
to pay with gift cards.

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

"Infidels in all ages have battled for the rights of man, and have at
all times been the fearless advocates of liberty and justice." [Robert
Green Ingersoll]

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

#147718

FromDavey <davey@example.invalid>
Date2025-04-09 11:45 +0100
Message-ID<vt5j44$f311$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#147699
On 08 Apr 2025 20:33:46 GMT
Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 13:52:35 +0100, Davey wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > Recently, I have noticed that spammer calls tend to have my local
> > area code preceding the rest of the spoofed number, but I also let
> > the answering machine part of the DECT system offer to record the
> > caller's information, which indeed usually results in a cleared
> > line. Serious people leave a message.  
> 
> I get spoofed numbers with a wide variety of area codes, although
> possibly more of my local area code. If the caller's name is given as
> a number, I NEVER have a message from those.
> 
> I've had very few junk callers leave a message. One way to tell is if
> the first couple of seconds are missing, since those robocallers seem
> to be unable to wait for the beep. You get something like "...ficer.
> You are being..." (The missing part was probably "This is of", and
> there was no officer's name). This is from a scam that claimed I owed
> the IRS, and need to pay with gift cards.
> 

The one calling site that leaves a message is the one that claims to be
from some charge card company, and tells me that there are two charges
on the card, from businesses that I do not use. The message is always
the same. I let the outgoing message play, and then wait for the line
to clear, which takes longer than it should, and I cannot clear it from
my end using the buttons on the handset. It only clears when the caller
drops the line.

-- 
Davey.

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

#147740

FromJMB99 <mb@nospam.net>
Date2025-04-10 09:16 +0100
Message-ID<vt7upq$2i6vb$6@dont-email.me>
In reply to#147718
On 09/04/2025 11:45, Davey wrote:
> The one calling site that leaves a message is the one that claims to be
> from some charge card company, and tells me that there are two charges
> on the card, from businesses that I do not use.


But never say which card!

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

#147742

FromDavey <davey@example.invalid>
Date2025-04-10 09:33 +0100
Message-ID<vt7vod$2joqk$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#147740
On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:16:48 +0100
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

> On 09/04/2025 11:45, Davey wrote:
> > The one calling site that leaves a message is the one that claims
> > to be from some charge card company, and tells me that there are
> > two charges on the card, from businesses that I do not use.  
> 
> 
> But never say which card!
> 
> 
> 

Well, no, that would be too much information! It is always the same
message, with the same charges.
I have recently had a spate of: "Your package is ready for
pickup..." e-mail messages, and a couple of the "Thank you for renewing
your Norton 360 subscription." ones. Since I have been exclusively a
Linux user since 2010, that is well out of date!

-- 
Davey.

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

#147744

FromJMB99 <mb@nospam.net>
Date2025-04-10 14:40 +0100
Message-ID<vt8hp3$338qp$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to#147742
On 10/04/2025 09:33, Davey wrote:
> Well, no, that would be too much information! It is always the same
> message, with the same charges.
> I have recently had a spate of: "Your package is ready for
> pickup..." e-mail messages, and a couple of the "Thank you for renewing
> your Norton 360 subscription." ones. Since I have been exclusively a
> Linux user since 2010, that is well out of date!


I have had some genuine ones, usually when there has been a foreign 
transaction.

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

#148235

FromDaniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org>
Date2025-04-29 21:23 +1000
Message-ID<vuqcs2$1m97a$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#147744
On 10/04/2025 11:40 pm, JMB99 wrote:
> On 10/04/2025 09:33, Davey wrote:
>> Well, no, that would be too much information! It is always the same
>> message, with the same charges.
>> I have recently had a spate of: "Your package is ready for
>> pickup..." e-mail messages, and a couple of the "Thank you for renewing
>> your Norton 360 subscription." ones. Since I have been exclusively a
>> Linux user since 2010, that is well out of date!
> 
> 
> I have had some genuine ones, usually when there has been a foreign 
> transaction.

I recently loaned a relative some money (about $10,000, I think) and, 
almost as I was hitting the 'Send' button, I got a phone call from my 
Banking Institutation checking if things were Okay Dokey ..... and this 
at about 4:50 on a Friday afternoon!! ;-)
-- 
Daniel70

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

#148211

FromDavey <davey@example.invalid>
Date2025-04-28 19:13 +0100
Message-ID<vuoggg$3s4hj$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#147742
On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:33:17 +0100
Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:16:48 +0100
> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> 
> > On 09/04/2025 11:45, Davey wrote:  
> > > The one calling site that leaves a message is the one that claims
> > > to be from some charge card company, and tells me that there are
> > > two charges on the card, from businesses that I do not use.    
> > 
> > 
> > But never say which card!
> > 
> > 
> >   
> 
> Well, no, that would be too much information! It is always the same
> message, with the same charges.
> I have recently had a spate of: "Your package is ready for
> pickup..." e-mail messages, and a couple of the "Thank you for
> renewing your Norton 360 subscription." ones. Since I have been
> exclusively a Linux user since 2010, that is well out of date!
> 

Yup, the Norton one I receive also. I am on Linux as well, and have
also been since 2010.

-- 
Davey.

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

#148212

FromAJL <noemail@none.com>
Date2025-04-28 18:59 +0000
Message-ID<vuoj7a$3v31u$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#148211
On 4/28/25 11:13 AM, Davey wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:33:17 +0100
>Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:16:48 +0100
>> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>> 
>> > On 09/04/2025 11:45, Davey wrote:  
>> > > The one calling site that leaves a message is the one that claims
>> > > to be from some charge card company, and tells me that there are
>> > > two charges on the card, from businesses that I do not use.    
>> > 
>> > 
>> > But never say which card!
>> > 
>> > 
>> >   
>> 
>> Well, no, that would be too much information! It is always the same
>> message, with the same charges.
>> I have recently had a spate of: "Your package is ready for
>> pickup..." e-mail messages, and a couple of the "Thank you for
>> renewing your Norton 360 subscription." ones. Since I have been
>> exclusively a Linux user since 2010, that is well out of date!
>> 
>
>Yup, the Norton one I receive also. I am on Linux as well, and have
>also been since 2010.

Somehow I got my Chromebook browser completely locked up saying I had a
 virus and to contact xxxx to get rid of it. However since it said it was a
 Windows 11 virus I wasn't too worried. But I was surprised that it was able
 to lock up the Chromebook completely so that I had to reboot it to recover.
 Perhaps Chrome stuff is not really as safe as advertised...

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

#148256

FromFrank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
Date2025-04-29 18:37 +0000
Message-ID<vurd7l.sn0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
In reply to#148212
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 4/28/25 11:13 AM, Davey wrote:
> >On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:33:17 +0100
> >Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:16:48 +0100
> >> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On 09/04/2025 11:45, Davey wrote:  
> >> > > The one calling site that leaves a message is the one that claims
> >> > > to be from some charge card company, and tells me that there are
> >> > > two charges on the card, from businesses that I do not use.    
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > But never say which card!
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >   
> >> 
> >> Well, no, that would be too much information! It is always the same
> >> message, with the same charges.
> >> I have recently had a spate of: "Your package is ready for
> >> pickup..." e-mail messages, and a couple of the "Thank you for
> >> renewing your Norton 360 subscription." ones. Since I have been
> >> exclusively a Linux user since 2010, that is well out of date!
> >> 
> >
> >Yup, the Norton one I receive also. I am on Linux as well, and have
> >also been since 2010.
> 
> Somehow I got my Chromebook browser completely locked up saying I had a
>  virus and to contact xxxx to get rid of it. However since it said it was a
>  Windows 11 virus I wasn't too worried. But I was surprised that it was able
>  to lock up the Chromebook completely so that I had to reboot it to recover.
>  Perhaps Chrome stuff is not really as safe as advertised...

  We had something like that in 2019 on my wife's laptop, in which a
full page web page "Your system is infected with 3 viruses" seemed to
have locked up the (Windows 8.1) computer. However it turned out that
Ctrl-Alt-Del could still access Task Manager and Task Manager could End
the offending process.

  The page  had a Microsoft logo and "Windows" in the text, but no
Windows version. It also had 'Scan Now' and 'Press OK to begin the
repair process'. For some strange reason, I never tried those buttons.

  Of course there was no virus and it wasn't even a get-money/ransomware
thing, more an ads things.

  According to my notes, the main culprit was rackcdn.com.

  I found the 'official' term for a thing like this, malvertising.

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

Page 7 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