Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #182937 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-03-20 12:10 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-03-31 12:23 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 186 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10
OT: spam phone calls Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-03-20 12:10 +0000
Re: OT: spam phone calls "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-03-20 08:53 -0400
Re: OT: spam phone calls Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-03-20 17:37 +0000
Re: OT: spam phone calls Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-03-21 12:08 +0000
Re: OT: spam phone calls Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-03-20 12:58 +0000
Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-20 15:00 +0100
Re: OT: spam phone calls Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-03-20 15:21 +0000
Re: OT: spam phone calls D <noreply@mixmin.net> - 2025-03-20 16:16 +0000
Re: OT: spam phone calls Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-03-20 18:53 +0100
Re: OT: spam phone calls Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-03-20 18:39 +0000
Re: OT: spam phone calls Jason H <jason_hindle@yehoo.com> - 2025-05-07 15:20 +0100
Re: OT: spam phone calls David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2025-05-07 20:39 +0100
Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-13 22:48 +1000
Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-07 22:34 +0200
Re: OT: spam phone calls David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2025-03-20 15:50 +0000
Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-20 22:32 +0100
Re: OT: spam phone calls Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-03-21 12:18 +0000
Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-09 12:50 +0200
Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-13 15:09 +0200
Re: OT: spam phone calls Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-05-13 16:08 +0200
Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-13 20:37 +0200
Re: OT: spam phone calls Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-05-13 21:27 +0200
Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-15 20:59 +1000
Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-15 13:40 +0200
Re: OT: spam phone calls JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2025-05-15 17:05 +0100
Re: OT: spam phone calls Invalid <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-20 16:31 +0000
Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-04-08 21:42 +1000
Re: OT: spam phone calls Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-03-20 12:59 -0400
Re: OT: spam phone calls "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-21 04:41 -0700
Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-21 13:51 +0100
Re: OT: spam phone calls Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-03-21 11:23 -0400
Re: OT: spam phone calls micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-03-21 12:32 -0400
Re: OT: spam phone calls Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-03-21 18:52 +0000
Re: OT: spam phone calls micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-03 08:00 -0400
Re: OT: spam phone calls Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-03 12:14 +0000
Re: OT: spam phone calls "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-03 14:22 +0200
Re: OT: spam phone calls 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 Sam E <no.email@here.invalid> - 2025-07-07 17:11 +0000
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 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 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 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
Re: OT: spam phone calls mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) - 2025-03-20 14:21 -0400
Re: OT: spam phone calls Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-03-31 20:35 +1100
Re: OT: spam phone calls Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-03-31 12:23 +0000
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-20 12:10 +0000 |
| Subject | OT: spam phone calls |
| Message-ID | <vrh0k4$36vfn$1@dont-email.me> |
I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so: Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang her landline earlier this morning. I did not, and my mobile phone has been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a signal) all morning, with nobody near it. The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error in dialling my number. I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed that they chose unallocated numbers. That is now apparently no longer true - unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471 service can see an erroneous number. -- Graham J
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-20 08:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vrh34d$38187$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #182937 |
On 3/20/25 08:10 AM, Graham J wrote:
> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
>
> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang her landline earlier
> this morning. I did not, and my mobile phone has been sitting on the windowsill (being
> the only place it can get a signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
>
> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's recall facility to
> ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error in dialling my number.
>
> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed that they chose
> unallocated numbers. That is now apparently no longer true - unless all you here can
> think of another way that the 1471 service can see an erroneous number.
>
>
I get calls on my phone/land line both. Now and then I'll get 2-3 calls one after the
other, 10 seconds apart. My theory is that it's a robo caller redialing me a few times
to see if I'll pick up maybe if I see a diff number.
I've had the strongest desire to try calling them back but I feel I'd probably just be
bugging some poor old lady or worse, some son of a bitch guy with a gun and a chip on his
shoulder and a death wish.
--
Linux Mint 22.1, Cinnamon 6.4.8, Kernel 6.8.0-55-generic
Thunderbird 128.8.0esr, Mozilla Firefox 136.0.1
Alan K.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-20 17:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <67dc525c$0$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #182938 |
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 08:53:33 -0400, Alan K. wrote: [snip] > I get calls on my phone/land line both. Now and then I'll get 2-3 > calls one after the other, 10 seconds apart. My theory is that it's a > robo caller redialing me a few times to see if I'll pick up maybe if I > see a diff number. I really wish cell phones would show caller ID NAME. That allows me to recognize most junk calls on my home phone. A couple of years ago, the usual display was "CITY ST" like "TELEPHONE TX". Now I still get some of those, but most have a NAME display the same as the number. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "...and when you tell me that your deity made you in his own image, I reply that he must be very ugly." -- Victor Hugo, writing to clergy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-21 12:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.424621bd89221e0098968f@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #182938 |
In article <vrh34d$38187$1@dont-email.me>, alan@invalid.com says... > >On 3/20/25 08:10 AM, Graham J wrote: ... > >I've had the strongest desire to try calling them back but I feel I'd probably just be >bugging some poor old lady or worse, some son of a bitch guy with a gun and a chip on his >shoulder and a death wish. Or simply validating that it's a line being used by someone - another mug for the database... -- -- Phil, London
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-20 12:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.424621653f10fd2298968e@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #182937 |
In article <vrh0k4$36vfn$1@dont-email.me>, nobody@nowhere.co.uk says... > >I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so: > >Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang >her landline earlier this morning. I did not, and my mobile phone has >been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a >signal) all morning, with nobody near it. > >The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's >recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error >in dialling my number. > >I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed that >they chose unallocated numbers. That is now apparently no longer true - >unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471 service can >see an erroneous number. Given that they don't care who they inconvenience, there's probably little benefit in ensuring they are using an unallocated number. And possible a benefit in using an existing one - anyone trying to follow it up may get bogged down in a dispute with the number's owner - distracting them from the real culprit. There are special cubicles in Hell for these people. -- -- Phil, London
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-20 15:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8kjtalxutn.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #182937 |
On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote: > I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so: There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to this post, so they will see your post below. > > Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang > her landline earlier this morning. I did not, and my mobile phone has > been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a > signal) all morning, with nobody near it. > > The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's > recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error > in dialling my number. > > I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed that > they chose unallocated numbers. That is now apparently no longer true - > unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471 service can > see an erroneous number. I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in a call. I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-20 15:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <861purzq0d.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #182940 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: > On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote: >> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so: > > There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like > comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to > this post, so they will see your post below. > >> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang >> her landline earlier this morning. I did not, and my mobile phone >> has been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a >> signal) all morning, with nobody near it. The lady used 1471 to find >> out who had rung her number, and used it's recall facility to ring >> me; so she didn't make any transcription error in dialling my number. >> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed >> that they chose unallocated numbers. That is now apparently no >> longer true - unless all you here can think of another way that the >> 1471 service can see an erroneous number. > > I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in > a call. > > I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the > number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer > to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted. It doesn't yet cover spoofed mobile numbers in caller-id.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <noreply@mixmin.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-20 16:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20250320.161631.b731a27d@mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #182941 |
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 15:21:54 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: >> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote: >>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so: >> >> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like >> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to >> this post, so they will see your post below. >> >>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang >>> her landline earlier this morning. I did not, and my mobile phone >>> has been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a >>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it. The lady used 1471 to find >>> out who had rung her number, and used it's recall facility to ring >>> me; so she didn't make any transcription error in dialling my number. >>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed >>> that they chose unallocated numbers. That is now apparently no >>> longer true - unless all you here can think of another way that the >>> 1471 service can see an erroneous number. >> >> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in >> a call. >> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the >> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer >> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted. > >It doesn't yet cover spoofed mobile numbers in caller-id. it's telephone terrorism, and phone companies get their scintillas since their inception, telegraph and telephone companies have been (big brother's black magic marker redacting records of secret data) there's nothing to see here ... keep moving ... keep moving ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-20 18:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vrhknf$5vjq$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #182941 |
On 20.03.25 16:21, Richmond wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: >> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the >> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer >> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted. > > It doesn't yet cover spoofed mobile numbers in caller-id. Sure it does: Usually you do not know the spoofed numbers so you do not take up the call. That is what we do too. If it is important people can leave a message on the voicemail box. -- "De gustibus non est disputandum."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-20 18:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <86wmcjy2ac.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #182950 |
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> writes: > On 20.03.25 16:21, Richmond wrote: >> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: >>> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the >>> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer >>> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted. >> >> It doesn't yet cover spoofed mobile numbers in caller-id. > > Sure it does: Usually you do not know the spoofed numbers so you do not > take up the call. That is what we do too. > > If it is important people can leave a message on the voicemail box. You deleted the part I was referring to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jason H <jason_hindle@yehoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-07 15:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vvfq7l$12ccc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #182941 |
On 3/20/25 15:21, Richmond wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: > >> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote: >>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so: >> >> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like >> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to >> this post, so they will see your post below. >> >>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang >>> her landline earlier this morning. I did not, and my mobile phone >>> has been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a >>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it. The lady used 1471 to find >>> out who had rung her number, and used it's recall facility to ring >>> me; so she didn't make any transcription error in dialling my number. >>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed >>> that they chose unallocated numbers. That is now apparently no >>> longer true - unless all you here can think of another way that the >>> 1471 service can see an erroneous number. >> >> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in >> a call. >> >> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the >> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer >> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted. > > It doesn't yet cover spoofed mobile numbers in caller-id. And not easy to enforce. I don't think there's anything in place (software/infrastructure) to spot a fake number from real. It's the bleeding obvious plague that no one saw coming -\O/-.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-07 20:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vvgcub$16vp3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #184326 |
On 07/05/2025 15:20, Jason H wrote: > And not easy to enforce. I don't think there's anything in place > (software/infrastructure) to spot a fake number from real. It's the > bleeding obvious plague that no one saw coming -\O/-. Yes there is, although it does have a third category for, basically, number from abroad, whose status is unknown. It has been introduced fro all VoIP in the USA. Providers have to sign information that indicates whether caller ID is the true caller ID, or another caller ID from someone they have positively identified. (A and B attestations; C is the third case above.) I haven't gone into the details of how the true identity is tracked, but, if it isn't included in the VoIP headers, I assume that the provider must log it and provide it to the authorities. Search STIR/SHAKEN for more information. Unfortunately this has been cross-posted to world as well as UK groups, and I suspect you are in the UK. Also the real problem is associated with VoIP, and it hasn't been posted to a VoIP group. I believe that the UK didn't want to use the extension to the traditional PSTN, and is awaiting analogue switch off, before fully implementing the same, or similar. I believe many US legacy network users see a "V" in the caller ID, if it is a true caller ID of the caller. I believe there are mechanisms for passing on authentication when an call is forwarded, but it's something I've researched in depth, only noting that complying has tripped up many US VoIP using organisations, who used to like forwarding original caller ID to outworkers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-13 22:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <vvvf2p$1qqqm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #184331 |
On 8/05/2025 5:39 am, David Woolley wrote: > On 07/05/2025 15:20, Jason H wrote: >> And not easy to enforce. I don't think there's anything in place >> (software/infrastructure) to spot a fake number from real. It's the >> bleeding obvious plague that no one saw coming -\O/-. > > Yes there is, although it does have a third category for, basically, > number from abroad, whose status is unknown. It has been introduced fro > all VoIP in the USA. > > Providers have to sign information that indicates whether caller ID is > the true caller ID, or another caller ID from someone they have > positively identified. (A and B attestations; C is the third case > above.) I haven't gone into the details of how the true identity is > tracked, but, if it isn't included in the VoIP headers, I assume that > the provider must log it and provide it to the authorities. > > Search STIR/SHAKEN for more information. > > Unfortunately this has been cross-posted to world as well as UK groups, > and I suspect you are in the UK. Also the real problem is associated > with VoIP, and it hasn't been posted to a VoIP group. > > I believe that the UK didn't want to use the extension to the > traditional PSTN, and is awaiting analogue switch off, before fully > implementing the same, or similar. > > I believe many US legacy network users see a "V" in the caller ID, if it > is a true caller ID of the caller. How long before the Spammers start including a 'V' at the start of their caller ID, then?? Or will International Telcos then start blocking any incoming calls that include a 'V'?? > I believe there are mechanisms for passing on authentication when an > call is forwarded, but it's something I've researched in depth, only > noting that complying has tripped up many US VoIP using organisations, > who used to like forwarding original caller ID to outworkers. -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-07 22:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <gosselxves.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #184326 |
On 2025-05-07 16:20, Jason H wrote: > On 3/20/25 15:21, Richmond wrote: >> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: >> >>> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote: >>>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so: >>> >>> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like >>> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to >>> this post, so they will see your post below. >>> >>>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang >>>> her landline earlier this morning. I did not, and my mobile phone >>>> has been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a >>>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it. The lady used 1471 to find >>>> out who had rung her number, and used it's recall facility to ring >>>> me; so she didn't make any transcription error in dialling my number. >>>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed >>>> that they chose unallocated numbers. That is now apparently no >>>> longer true - unless all you here can think of another way that the >>>> 1471 service can see an erroneous number. >>> >>> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in >>> a call. >>> >>> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the >>> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer >>> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted. >> >> It doesn't yet cover spoofed mobile numbers in caller-id. > > And not easy to enforce. I don't think there's anything in place > (software/infrastructure) to spot a fake number from real. It's the > bleeding obvious plague that no one saw coming -\O/-. It can be done via regulation. A major telephone provider has to accept connections coming from other provider. If that provider allows faked numbers, break the contract, no more calls coming from that provider. Block them all till they do something. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-20 15:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vrhdfj$3hfn1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #182940 |
On 20/03/2025 14:00, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote: >> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so: > > There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like > comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to this > post, so they will see your post below. > >> >> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang >> her landline earlier this morning. I did not, and my mobile phone has >> been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a >> signal) all morning, with nobody near it. >> >> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's >> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error >> in dialling my number. >> >> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed >> that they chose unallocated numbers. That is now apparently no longer >> true - unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471 >> service can see an erroneous number. I had the same a while ago. Got lots of angry calls on my mobile. For a while I changed my voice mail to tell callers my number was being spoofed. Seems to have stopped being used now. > > I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in a > call. > I think using a mobile by-passes the regulation, because otherwise it would prevent mobile roaming. Expect more use of mobiles by scammers. > I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the > number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer to > let them try again, maybe they got interrupted. > > I wish others would do that, but of course with a mobile "it might be a friend with a new number" so its tempting to return the call Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-20 22:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <u3eualx50s.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #182942 |
On 2025-03-20 16:50, David Wade wrote: > On 20/03/2025 14:00, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote: >>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so: >> >> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like >> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to >> this post, so they will see your post below. >> >>> >>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang >>> her landline earlier this morning. I did not, and my mobile phone >>> has been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a >>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it. >>> >>> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's >>> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription >>> error in dialling my number. >>> >>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed >>> that they chose unallocated numbers. That is now apparently no >>> longer true - unless all you here can think of another way that the >>> 1471 service can see an erroneous number. > > I had the same a while ago. Got lots of angry calls on my mobile. For a > while I changed my voice mail to tell callers my number was being > spoofed. Seems to have stopped being used now. That's horrible luck. > >> >> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in >> a call. >> > > I think using a mobile by-passes the regulation, because otherwise it > would prevent mobile roaming. Expect more use of mobiles by scammers. Argh. :-/ > >> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the >> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer >> to let them try again, maybe they got interrupted. >> >> > I wish others would do that, but of course with a mobile "it might be a > friend with a new number" so its tempting to return the call The friend will call again or leave a whatsapp or SMS. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-21 12:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.4247695cad7f44bf989690@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #182940 |
In article <8kjtalxutn.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, robin_listas@es.invalid says... > > >I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in a >call. > >I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the >number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer to >let them try again, maybe they got interrupted. There are regulations, sure, but there are laws against fraud. Currently estimated at 40% of all crime in the UK. -- -- Phil, London
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-09 12:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <svvhclxjdo.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #182940 |
On 2025-03-20 15:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:
>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
>
> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like
> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to this
> post, so they will see your post below.
>
>>
>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang
>> her landline earlier this morning. I did not, and my mobile phone has
>> been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a
>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
>>
>> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's
>> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error
>> in dialling my number.
>>
>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed
>> that they chose unallocated numbers. That is now apparently no longer
>> true - unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471
>> service can see an erroneous number.
>
> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in a
> call.
Spain has a new regulation. The other day I chanced on a press article saying that Telefónica, the biggest provider here, is activating measures early.
I hope it is true.
Automatic translation by DeepL:
<https://www.servimedia.es/noticias/telefonica-inicia-bloqueo-llamadas-internacionales-fraudulentas-numeracion-espanola/1411571767>
Telefónica starts blocking fraudulent international calls with Spanish numbers
- Ahead of the deadline for the ministerial order against telephone scams
4-5 minutes
Telefónica has already begun blocking calls and SMS messages with international origin using Spanish numbers except when roaming is permitted, ahead of the deadlines established in the order against telephone scams recently approved by the government.
The order of the Ministry of Digital Transformation and Public Function came into force on 7 March and establishes a maximum period of three months for operators, until 7 June, to begin blocking calls, but Telefónica has anticipated this date and has already put it into effect, according to sources from the company, which have told Servimedia.
The aim of the ban on calls and messages with international origins and national numbers is to prevent scams, as this type of communication encourages identity theft by simulating calls from reliable local numbers.
In order to block these communications, Telefónica has implemented the necessary technical measures to control roaming calls from Movistar customers originating abroad.
Another measure provided for in the order, which Telefónica has already implemented in compliance with the established deadlines, concerns the detection and blocking of calls and messages that use as a sender a number not assigned to the operators or that enter the user's telephone with an empty sender.
On the other hand, the order establishes that the CNMC must create a public register of ‘aliases’, or alphanumeric codes that can be used as senders of messages, which includes both the alias and the identification of the operators or messaging service providers authorised to send SMS or MMS using that alias.
Messages originating from aliases not included in this register will have to be blocked by the messaging providers.
According to Telefónica, they have already made themselves available to the regulator to work on the project, which in this case has more time for its implementation, until 7 June 2026.
COMMERCIAL SPAM
As for measures relating to the identification of customer service calls and unsolicited commercial calls, which are also included in the order as of 7 June 2025, commercial calls from mobile numbers will be prohibited and 800 and 900 numbers will be enabled for commercial calls by call centre staff. Telefónica is also working on this point by contacting customers who may need changes to comply with this requirement.
Telefónica has been taking various measures to protect its customers from scams for years. Movistar regularly and regularly launches campaigns with a series of recommendations to avoid fraud, as well as disseminating a series of tips and warnings via direct email to the customer, via social networks and/or on the WhatsApp channel.
In addition, Movistar implements numerous barriers to make it difficult for fraudsters to obtain customer data. One of them consists of securing the change of credentials in the customer area of the website by sending an OTP code (One-Time Password) to the customer's phone with the message ‘If someone is asking you for this code, do not give it to them. They may be cheating you’. This advice makes it clear that the customer must enter it on the website, no one else, and never give it to third parties.
Telefónica also collaborates with the State Security Forces and Corps to try to dismantle the schemes involved in this type of scam.
As regards unwanted commercial calls or spam, Movistar does not make them and only contacts potential customers who have requested information in its shops. Even in the latter case, the teleco always applies the stipulations of the internal code of ethics of good practices in terms of days, times, identification of the calling number and the name of both the calling company and the salesperson making the call.
(SERVIMEDIA)
06 Apr 2025
JRN/gja
--
Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-13 15:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ussbflxmk.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #182940 |
On 2025-03-20 15:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-03-20 13:10, Graham J wrote:
>> I know you're all very knowledgeable here, so:
>
> There are groups more appropriate to phone trouble, like
> comp.mobile.android or uk.telecom.mobile. I have added them both to this
> post, so they will see your post below.
>
>>
>> Received a call on my mobile, from a lady in Scotland who says I rang
>> her landline earlier this morning. I did not, and my mobile phone has
>> been sitting on the windowsill (being the only place it can get a
>> signal) all morning, with nobody near it.
>>
>> The lady used 1471 to find out who had rung her number, and used it's
>> recall facility to ring me; so she didn't make any transcription error
>> in dialling my number.
>>
>> I'm aware that spammers spoof mobile numbers but had always assumed
>> that they chose unallocated numbers. That is now apparently no longer
>> true - unless all you here can think of another way that the 1471
>> service can see an erroneous number.
>
> I thought Britain had some new regulation about faking the A number in a
> call.
>
> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the
> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer to
> let them try again, maybe they got interrupted.
Spain has announced a new regulation this summer (it still has to be
processed in Parliament). Commercial entities issuing phone calls will
prepend a number to their phone number, identifying the company. There
will be a registry of such prefixes. Telcos will block phone calls
without the prefix.
+++···················
<https://cadenaser.com/nacional/2025/05/12/bustinduy-explica-las-tres-medidas-de-consumo-para-acabar-con-las-llamadas-comerciales-masivas-a-los-moviles-cadena-ser/>
...
What is the Ministry going to do to put an end to calls from companies
to sell us supposed offers?
We have done our homework and we are going to introduce a regulatory
change through two amendments to the Customer Services Act to block
so-called spam calls. We will do this in three ways:
* Companies will be obliged to identify all numbers from which they
make business telephone calls with a specific numerical code (a
telephone prefix). They will also have to identify customer service
calls with a different code. On the basis of these codes,
telecommunications operators will be obliged to block all calls from
companies that do not use these codes.
* To declare null and void contracts that are concluded in
non-consensual telephone calls. In this way, companies will be
discouraged from making unwanted calls, since the contracts obtained in
this type of communication will be null and void.
* All companies will be obliged to renew their consent to receive
commercial calls with the user every two years, thus ensuring that
companies do not rely on indefinite or ambiguous authorisations to
continue contacting consumers.
How will the code numbers work?
There is a register of number codes so that when that prefix calls us,
it will come up and we will know that it is commercial, it will be
traceable. If there is a call without a code, companies will have to
block it immediately.
And how is consent renewed every two years?
We will have to renew our consent every two years. It will also happen
with the automatic renewal of subscriptions. We are going to introduce
that 15 days before the renewal takes place, companies will have to send
an obligatory email to give notice. It is a question of ensuring what we
contract and how much we spend.
...
···················++-
But I don't understand how Telcos will detect that a phone call without
prefix is commercial. We still have the problem of faked numbers.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-13 16:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vvvjo0$jssh$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #184426 |
On 13.05.25 15:09, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-03-20 15:00, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> I never return phone calls from unknown numbers. Only when I know the >> number is from some friend or family I return the call, but I prefer to >> let them try again, maybe they got interrupted. > > Spain has announced a new regulation this summer (it still has to be > processed in Parliament). Commercial entities issuing phone calls will > prepend a number to their phone number, identifying the company. There > will be a registry of such prefixes. Telcos will block phone calls > without the prefix. How long will it take until spammers prepend these numbers? Come on! This is quite primitive! The Spaniards should ask Swisscom how these things really work and how spamblocking is professionally executed in a VOIP-network. -- "Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10
csiph-web