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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #57930 > unrolled thread

Warning possible scam

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

Contents

  Warning possible scam John Jones <a1jrj@hotamil.com> - 2018-11-27 09:26 +0000
    Re: Warning possible scam "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-27 23:16 +0100
      Re: Warning possible scam "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-28 07:00 +0000
        Re: Warning possible scam "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-28 13:44 +0100
      Re: Warning possible scam M.L. <me@privacy.invalid> - 2018-11-28 15:45 -0600
        Re: Warning possible scam John Jones <a1jrj@hotamil.com> - 2018-11-29 11:45 +0000
        Re: Warning possible scam "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 15:57 +0100
          Re: Warning possible scam Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2018-11-30 14:21 +0000
            Re: Warning possible scam "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 04:15 +0100
              Re: Warning possible scam Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-12-01 08:46 +0100
                Re: Warning possible scam Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-01 18:02 +0000
                  Re: Warning possible scam "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-12-01 19:52 +0000
                    SMS "confirmations", was: Warning possible scam danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2018-12-02 02:35 +0000
                      Re: SMS "confirmations", was: Warning possible scam "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:42 +0100
      Re: Warning possible scam micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> - 2018-11-29 07:06 -0500
        Re: Warning possible scam "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 15:58 +0100

#57930 — Warning possible scam

I received a text from 'Emma' saying she was at a hospital and I was to 
text back asap. I replied that she had the wrong number. But thinking 
about it, how easy is it to *text* to a wrong number to someone you know 
well enough to demand instant attention. So I now look forward to a 
thousand PPI and injury claim phone calls.
HTH
JJ

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#57938

On 27/11/2018 10.26, John Jones wrote:
> 
> I received a text from 'Emma' saying she was at a hospital and I was to 
> text back asap. I replied that she had the wrong number. But thinking 
> about it, how easy is it to *text* to a wrong number to someone you know 
> well enough to demand instant attention. So I now look forward to a 
> thousand PPI and injury claim phone calls.

I fail to see the consequences of answering the text :-?

Either it is genuine, somebody that got the wrong number, or somebody
you forgot, or it is a scam, so what?

The latest one around here is that they told people (often minors)
somehow to open a page, that happened to be a porn site.

You just block the number when you know that it is a scam.

If they tell you to call another number or to add it to your contacts,
obviously don't.


Or you can install a filtering application: I'm using "hiya". People
contribute to the database the known numbers of scammers. If you get a
scam call or text, you add your comment, read other comments, then block
it. Numbers that are definitely known to be scammers are blocked directly.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#57943

In message <6bs0df-kll.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. 
<robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
[]
>Or you can install a filtering application: I'm using "hiya". People
>contribute to the database the known numbers of scammers. If you get a
>scam call or text, you add your comment, read other comments, then block
>it. Numbers that are definitely known to be scammers are blocked directly.
>
Presumably "hiya" and other such companies have in place ways to detect 
denial-of-service attacks, where someone organises lots of false reports 
of scams coming from a legitimate number, with the intention of getting 
it blocked - either for mischief reasons, or anarchy, or a competitor's 
business?
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Have you ever heard about a petition, disagreed with it, but been frustrated
that there's no way you can *show* that you disagree? If so, have a look at
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 - and please pass it on if you
agree, especially to twitter, facebook, gransnet/mumsnet, or any such forum.

I admire you British: when things get tough, you reach for humour. Not
firearms. - Sigourney (Susan) Weaver, RT 2017/11/4-10

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

#57947

On 28/11/2018 08.00, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <6bs0df-kll.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
> []
>> Or you can install a filtering application: I'm using "hiya". People
>> contribute to the database the known numbers of scammers. If you get a
>> scam call or text, you add your comment, read other comments, then block
>> it. Numbers that are definitely known to be scammers are blocked
>> directly.
>>
> Presumably "hiya" and other such companies have in place ways to detect
> denial-of-service attacks, where someone organises lots of false reports
> of scams coming from a legitimate number, with the intention of getting
> it blocked - either for mischief reasons, or anarchy, or a competitor's
> business?

Dunno. It is a fair point...

Maybe they log who says what, but that information is not displayed. At
least, you need a valid phone number in order to add a report on a
another number, and that bad number has to call you first: you can not
add a report on a random number.

I can say that we bought at Samsung A8 in Canada last September and Hiya
came preinstalled, integrated with the default phone app. And it is not
the only brand. T-mobile also integrates it. Thus probably Hiya in the
USA+Canada market is quite reliable.

In Spain I see that it gives less information.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#57974

>I fail to see the consequences of answering the text :-?

At the very least it lets the scammer know that the number has a
genuine owner that can allow the scam to proceed.

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

#57983

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:45:34 -0600, "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in 
article <iv2uvd5j9kmudi9ncviklahcibt8u29n2a@4ax.com>...
> 
> >I fail to see the consequences of answering the text :-?
> 
> At the very least it lets the scammer know that the number has a
> genuine owner that can allow the scam to proceed.

Which was my thought. 
Also it says that the phone is owned by the kind of person that might be 
easily taken in :-)
However, it looks like a one-off.
JJ

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

#57991

On 28/11/2018 22.45, M.L. wrote:
> 
> 
>> I fail to see the consequences of answering the text :-?
> 
> At the very least it lets the scammer know that the number has a
> genuine owner that can allow the scam to proceed.

Ah, I see.

But they can also activate the feature that confirms receival of SMS.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#58007

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 15:57:56 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 28/11/2018 22.45, M.L. wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> I fail to see the consequences of answering the text :-?
>> 
>> At the very least it lets the scammer know that the number has a
>> genuine owner that can allow the scam to proceed.
> 
> Ah, I see.
> 
> But they can also activate the feature that confirms receival of SMS.

I have "Send Read Receipts" turned off.

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

#58022

On 30/11/2018 15.21, Joe Beanfish wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 15:57:56 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>> On 28/11/2018 22.45, M.L. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I fail to see the consequences of answering the text :-?
>>>
>>> At the very least it lets the scammer know that the number has a
>>> genuine owner that can allow the scam to proceed.
>>
>> Ah, I see.
>>
>> But they can also activate the feature that confirms receival of SMS.
> 
> I have "Send Read Receipts" turned off.

Read, yes, but "received" you can not control, I understand.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#58026

Am 01.12.18 um 04:15 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 30/11/2018 15.21, Joe Beanfish wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 15:57:56 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> But they can also activate the feature that confirms receival of SMS.
>>
>> I have "Send Read Receipts" turned off.
> 
> Read, yes, but "received" you can not control, I understand.

SMS is a collateral service provided on the control channels of the 
mobile networks. There is no such thing  as allowing the sender to know 
reliably what happened to the sent message.

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

#58048

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 01.12.18 um 04:15 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> > On 30/11/2018 15.21, Joe Beanfish wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 15:57:56 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> >>> But they can also activate the feature that confirms receival of SMS.
> >>
> >> I have "Send Read Receipts" turned off.
> > 
> > Read, yes, but "received" you can not control, I understand.
> 
> SMS is a collateral service provided on the control channels of the 
> mobile networks. There is no such thing  as allowing the sender to know 
> reliably what happened to the sent message.

  Well, if you ask for a delivery report and get one, that is a reliable
confirmation, but if you do *not* get one, you indeed don't know whether
the message was delivered or not.

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

#58051

In message <ptulr6.8ns.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg 
<this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:
>Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 01.12.18 um 04:15 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> > On 30/11/2018 15.21, Joe Beanfish wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 15:57:56 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> >>> But they can also activate the feature that confirms receival of SMS.
>> >>
>> >> I have "Send Read Receipts" turned off.
>> >
>> > Read, yes, but "received" you can not control, I understand.
>>
>> SMS is a collateral service provided on the control channels of the
>> mobile networks. There is no such thing  as allowing the sender to know
>> reliably what happened to the sent message.
>
>  Well, if you ask for a delivery report and get one, that is a reliable
>confirmation, but if you do *not* get one, you indeed don't know whether
>the message was delivered or not.

Even that's only confirmation that a tower _thinks_ it got confirmation 
of receipt. (Though it _probably_ is reasonable. You certainly don't 
know if the recipient deleted it immediately, though, possibly even 
automatically.)


Ever been frustrated that you can't *disagree* with a petition? If so, visit
255soft.uk - and please pass it on, too.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Old soldiers never die - only young ones

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

#58055 — SMS "confirmations", was: Warning possible scam

>>  Well, if you ask for a delivery report and get one, that is a reliable
>>confirmation, but if you do *not* get one, you indeed don't know whether
>>the message was delivered or not.

>Even that's only confirmation that a tower _thinks_ it got confirmation 
>of receipt. (Though it _probably_ is reasonable. You certainly don't 
>know if the recipient deleted it immediately, though, possibly even 
>automatically.)

On the other hand, I've sent SMS messages from my cellphone
to my non-textable land line. Yes, I have one.

And... my cellphone politely gives me the "ding" to verify
that the message was delivered.

Yes, I've complained to the carrier.  It's being looked into...



-- 
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com 
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

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

#58067 — Re: SMS "confirmations", was: Warning possible scam

On 02/12/2018 03.35, danny burstein wrote:
>>>  Well, if you ask for a delivery report and get one, that is a reliable
>>> confirmation, but if you do *not* get one, you indeed don't know whether
>>> the message was delivered or not.
> 
>> Even that's only confirmation that a tower _thinks_ it got confirmation 
>> of receipt. (Though it _probably_ is reasonable. You certainly don't 
>> know if the recipient deleted it immediately, though, possibly even 
>> automatically.)
> 
> On the other hand, I've sent SMS messages from my cellphone
> to my non-textable land line. Yes, I have one.
> 
> And... my cellphone politely gives me the "ding" to verify
> that the message was delivered.
> 
> Yes, I've complained to the carrier.  It's being looked into...

Your mobile carrier hands it off to the landline provider, which
probably acknowledges it, and that's it.

The land line needs the customer to enable receiving or not the texts,
which is what the "confirmation" software doesn't know.


I tried enabling texts to my land line once. The phone rings once. If
the terminal is not capable, you get to listen to a text to speech
conversion of the text - which can be funny if the sender used
contractions. A setting was to get all the texts a single time per day -
and the phone would ring just once at strange hours, so we disabled it
(me and the friend with whom we were testing it).


The software on landline exchanges is very old. Ancient. And terribly
expensive to upgrade and expand. Unless they moved you to fibre and VoIp
behind the scenes.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#57984

In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:16:38 +0100, "Carlos
E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 27/11/2018 10.26, John Jones wrote:
>> 
>> I received a text from 'Emma' saying she was at a hospital and I was to 
>> text back asap. I replied that she had the wrong number. But thinking 
>> about it, how easy is it to *text* to a wrong number to someone you know 
>> well enough to demand instant attention. So I now look forward to a 
>> thousand PPI and injury claim phone calls.
>
>I fail to see the consequences of answering the text :-?
>
>Either it is genuine, somebody that got the wrong number, or somebody
>you forgot, or it is a scam, so what?
>
>The latest one around here is that they told people (often minors)
>somehow to open a page, that happened to be a porn site.
>
>You just block the number when you know that it is a scam.
>
>If they tell you to call another number or to add it to your contacts,
>obviously don't.
>
>
>Or you can install a filtering application: I'm using "hiya". People
>contribute to the database the known numbers of scammers. If you get a

Another solution is to have a phone like mine that does not ring. It
frustrates the spammers. 

>scam call or text, you add your comment, read other comments, then block
>it. Numbers that are definitely known to be scammers are blocked directly.

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

#57992

On 29/11/2018 13.06, micky wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:16:38 +0100, "Carlos
> E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 27/11/2018 10.26, John Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> I received a text from 'Emma' saying she was at a hospital and I was to 
>>> text back asap. I replied that she had the wrong number. But thinking 
>>> about it, how easy is it to *text* to a wrong number to someone you know 
>>> well enough to demand instant attention. So I now look forward to a 
>>> thousand PPI and injury claim phone calls.
>>
>> I fail to see the consequences of answering the text :-?
>>
>> Either it is genuine, somebody that got the wrong number, or somebody
>> you forgot, or it is a scam, so what?
>>
>> The latest one around here is that they told people (often minors)
>> somehow to open a page, that happened to be a porn site.
>>
>> You just block the number when you know that it is a scam.
>>
>> If they tell you to call another number or to add it to your contacts,
>> obviously don't.
>>
>>
>> Or you can install a filtering application: I'm using "hiya". People
>> contribute to the database the known numbers of scammers. If you get a
> 
> Another solution is to have a phone like mine that does not ring. It
> frustrates the spammers. 

LOL!

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web