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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #32296 > unrolled thread

Anybody here who still pays for a landline

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

Contents

  Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 19:11 -0700
    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-19 22:16 -0400
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 03:22 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2016-07-20 03:11 -0500
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 07:31 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 09:05 -0700
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 12:18 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2016-07-20 12:36 -0500
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:28 -0400
                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2016-07-20 19:24 -0500
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 13:58 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline John Carter <me@mymailsvr.org> - 2016-08-19 01:27 +0000
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-22 03:13 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 09:54 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 08:09 -0700
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 11:44 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:32 -0400
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 18:35 -0400
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2016-07-20 13:03 -0500
    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2016-07-20 05:59 +0200
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 00:26 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 07:55 +0000
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 09:54 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2016-07-20 18:36 +0200
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 17:46 +0000
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 21:29 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-07-20 09:03 +0100
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2016-07-20 12:53 +0100
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 09:54 -0400
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 04:16 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 10:38 -0400
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 10:52 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 11:52 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 08:11 -0700
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:32 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 16:41 -0700
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2016-07-21 07:09 +0200
                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Tim <timothybil@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-21 09:09 -0500
                  Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 12:46 -0700
                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:23 -0400
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:51 -0700
                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 15:09 -0700
                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 18:23 -0400
                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 07:47 +0000
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 16:42 -0400
                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-23 11:42 +0100
                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 13:28 -0400
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:59 -0700
                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> - 2016-07-22 19:08 -0400
                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 00:30 -0400
                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-23 04:00 -0400
                            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-23 06:07 -0400
                              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-24 04:17 -0400
                                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 08:13 -0700
                                  Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-24 16:23 -0400
                                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 19:24 -0700
                                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 20:14 -0700
                                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 04:29 -0400
                                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-26 09:30 -0400
                                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:38 -0700
                                            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-26 17:58 +0100
                                            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:17 -0400
                                              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 15:23 -0400
                                                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-27 02:30 -0400
                                              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 08:46 -0700
                                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline crankypuss <undisclosedUserid@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:12 -0600
                                  Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 04:27 -0400
                                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:27 -0700
                                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-26 13:40 -0400
                                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-24 11:16 -0400
                                  Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-24 16:27 -0400
                                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-24 16:35 -0400
                                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-24 19:38 -0400
                                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-24 20:21 -0400
                                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> - 2016-07-24 22:07 -0400
                                            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-24 22:11 -0400
                            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 13:35 -0400
                              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 15:16 -0700
                                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 23:48 -0400
                                  Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 20:55 -0700
                              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-24 04:22 -0400
                                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:27 -0400
                                  Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-27 02:38 -0400
                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline crankpuss <undisclosedUserid@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 06:34 -0600
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 16:41 -0400
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 14:03 -0700
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 21:30 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 09:02 -0700
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:49 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2016-07-20 18:40 +0200
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:53 -0400
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-20 05:59 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 10:38 -0400
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 10:52 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 11:53 -0400
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 12:18 -0400
                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 12:43 -0400
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 08:13 -0700
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 11:44 -0400
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 11:08 -0700
                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 14:15 -0400
                  Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 12:24 -0700
                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 15:47 -0400
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 16:42 -0700
                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-07-25 17:58 +0000
                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-25 15:07 -0400
                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 14:03 -0700
                  Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 15:27 -0400
                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 15:47 -0400
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 16:07 -0400
                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:31 -0400
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 16:45 -0700
                        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 20:01 -0700
                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-21 00:15 -0400
                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 02:08 -0400
                          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-22 04:04 -0400
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 02:17 -0400
                    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-07-25 17:49 +0000
                      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-25 15:07 -0400
                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-22 03:51 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-22 03:44 -0400
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-07-25 17:53 +0000
                Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-25 15:07 -0400
    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 07:55 +0000
    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2016-07-20 12:53 +0100
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 09:54 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2016-07-23 23:38 +0100
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-24 11:16 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2016-07-25 07:32 +0100
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-25 10:25 -0400
    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-07-20 07:04 -0500
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 09:54 -0400
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 08:16 -0700
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 11:44 -0400
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 11:08 -0700
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 09:09 -0700
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-20 17:29 +0100
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 12:44 -0400
            Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:45 +0000
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-21 10:41 +0100
              Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-21 09:13 -0400
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 13:59 -0700
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:26 -0400
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:29 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:28 -0400
    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline "tb" <nospam@example.invalid> - 2016-07-20 13:41 +0000
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:32 -0400
    Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-07-21 02:58 +1000
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 12:59 -0400
        Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:34 -0400
          Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-21 22:38 -0400
      Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:34 -0400

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

#32788

On 26/07/2016 16:38, The Real Bev wrote:
[]
> One of our friends who anonymizes his number gets more telemarketing
> calls than we do.  He just lets them go to the answering machine.  I
> don't understand how he can tolerate the 4 rings and then the answering
> message, but he can.

I certainly couldn't tolerate rings either.  My box does just what I 
want, and I've been most pleased with it.  Yes, it shouldn't be 
necessary and, yes, it cost GBP 100, but it's brought more me much more 
than GBP 100 worth peace of mind.

-- 
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

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

#32808

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 08:38:51 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 07/26/2016 01:29 AM, Micky wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 20:14:47 -0700, The Real Bev
>> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 07/24/2016 07:24 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 07/24/2016 01:23 PM, tlvp wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 08:13:29 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is the distraction of the ringing itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Distraction? I'm too deaf to hear it when I'm asleep or out shopping. And I
>>>>> let them go to the TAD when I'm at home, answer only if it's someone I know
>>>>> trying to leave me a message.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... Looking at the
>>>>>> number and trying to decide if it's the doctor's office calling back on
>>>>>> an unfamiliar number.
>>>>
>>>> So far no telemarketer calls at all.  They must be observing Sunday.
>>>> Now I WANT one of them to call...
>>>>
>>>>> Again (yes, cut'n'paste, sorry): I let them go to the TAD when I'm at home,
>>>>> answer only if it's someone I know trying to leave me a message.
>>>
>>>It's filtered out 3 calls today.  Didn't ring.  The only people who rang
>>>were our friends.  The anonymous and dead air people withered on the
>>>vine.  So far so good!
>>
>> How does it know who to wither?
>
>All anonymous calls.  

Oh, yeah.  You said that.   

>(Ooma already did that;  our friends use *62 

I know *69 and *67 but what is *62?

>before dialing our number.)
>All calls whose originators don't press 1 to be connected.

Oh, yeah, you said that.  But it's probably fun to say it again. 

>Calls previously marked "reject"

That's what I was thinkin of and that  you haven't done any  of that
yet. 

>Calls from the list of known telemarketers

No kidding!

>You can whitelist people manually, but it's a monumental nuisance using 
>only up/down and ENTER buttons.  Crazy people would do that.  If people 
>press 1 they're automatically whitelisted, but we can blacklist the call 
>if it turns out to be a telemarketer.
>
>Most of the telemarketers are local businesses who want to remodel our 
>house.  

How  much would you pay me to remodel your house?

>The message says "If you're a telemarketer, please put this 
>number on your do-not-call list and hang up..."  I guess they figure -- 
>rightly -- that this means them.
>
>One of our friends who anonymizes his number gets more telemarketing 
>calls than we do. 

He anonymizes his number for people who call HIM?   Or for when he
calls you, and it's a coincidence that he gets more tm calls than you
do? 

> He just lets them go to the answering machine.  I 
>don't understand how he can tolerate the 4 rings and then the answering 
>message, but he can.

4 is pretty bad. 

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

#32809

In article <dgdfpbdt7jgrjcjofdb7utv927sig6l7l7@4ax.com>, Micky
<NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> >(Ooma already did that;  our friends use *62 
> 
> I know *69 and *67 but what is *62?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_service_code#North_America>

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

#32830

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:23:19 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <dgdfpbdt7jgrjcjofdb7utv927sig6l7l7@4ax.com>, Micky
> <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>>(Ooma already did that;  our friends use *62 
>> 
>> I know *69 and *67 but what is *62?
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_service_code#North_America>

Think 31 numbers is anywhere near enough numbers to accept?
(I agree it may be too much to train each of those callers to prepend *62.)

Or does Oooma accept more than the Cox.com business default of 31 (cf.
<http://www.cox.com/business/support/voice/article.cox?articleId=cb5d1ac0-66c2-11e0-4e73-000000000000>)?

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

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

#32837

On 07/26/2016 12:17 PM, Micky wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 08:38:51 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 07/26/2016 01:29 AM, Micky wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 20:14:47 -0700, The Real Bev
>>> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 07/24/2016 07:24 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>> On 07/24/2016 01:23 PM, tlvp wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 08:13:29 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is the distraction of the ringing itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Distraction? I'm too deaf to hear it when I'm asleep or out shopping. And I
>>>>>> let them go to the TAD when I'm at home, answer only if it's someone I know
>>>>>> trying to leave me a message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... Looking at the
>>>>>>> number and trying to decide if it's the doctor's office calling back on
>>>>>>> an unfamiliar number.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far no telemarketer calls at all.  They must be observing Sunday.
>>>>> Now I WANT one of them to call...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again (yes, cut'n'paste, sorry): I let them go to the TAD when I'm at home,
>>>>>> answer only if it's someone I know trying to leave me a message.
>>>>
>>>>It's filtered out 3 calls today.  Didn't ring.  The only people who rang
>>>>were our friends.  The anonymous and dead air people withered on the
>>>>vine.  So far so good!

It killed 7 calls yesterday.  Life is good.

>>> How does it know who to wither?
>>
>>All anonymous calls.
>
> Oh, yeah.  You said that.
>
>>(Ooma already did that;  our friends use *62
>
> I know *69 and *67 but what is *62?

I was hoping it was the one that defeats anonymity :-(  I guess I was 
wrong.

>>before dialing our number.)
>>All calls whose originators don't press 1 to be connected.
>
> Oh, yeah, you said that.  But it's probably fun to say it again.
>
>>Calls previously marked "reject"
>
> That's what I was thinkin of and that  you haven't done any  of that
> yet.
>
>>Calls from the list of known telemarketers
>
> No kidding!
>
>>You can whitelist people manually, but it's a monumental nuisance using
>>only up/down and ENTER buttons.  Crazy people would do that.  If people
>>press 1 they're automatically whitelisted, but we can blacklist the call
>>if it turns out to be a telemarketer.
>>
>>Most of the telemarketers are local businesses who want to remodel our
>>house.
>
> How  much would you pay me to remodel your house?

Not a dime.  That's our heirs' problem, and they'll probably solve it 
with a bulldozer.

>>The message says "If you're a telemarketer, please put this
>>number on your do-not-call list and hang up..."  I guess they figure --
>>rightly -- that this means them.
>>
>>One of our friends who anonymizes his number gets more telemarketing
>>calls than we do.
>
> He anonymizes his number for people who call HIM?   Or for when he
> calls you, and it's a coincidence that he gets more tm calls than you
> do?

He anonymizes his number when HE makes calls.  That's why I don't 
understand why he gets so many calls.  What's the point of anonymizing 
unless you're calling a tip line or something similar?

>> He just lets them go to the answering machine.  I
>>don't understand how he can tolerate the 4 rings and then the answering
>>message, but he can.
>
> 4 is pretty bad.

It gives me time to run in from anywhere I can actually hear the phone.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
   "I don't trust carry-out food.  When you find hair in my cooking
    you don't hafta worry about where it came from!" -- Dinette Set

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

#32767

On 07/24/2016 08:24 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 07/24/2016 01:23 PM, tlvp wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 08:13:29 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is the distraction of the ringing itself.
>>
>> Distraction? I'm too deaf to hear it when I'm asleep or out shopping.
>> And I
>> let them go to the TAD when I'm at home, answer only if it's someone I
>> know
>> trying to leave me a message.
>>
>>> ... Looking at the
>>> number and trying to decide if it's the doctor's office calling back on
>>> an unfamiliar number.
>
> So far no telemarketer calls at all.  They must be observing Sunday. Now
> I WANT one of them to call...
>
>> Again (yes, cut'n'paste, sorry): I let them go to the TAD when I'm at
>> home,
>> answer only if it's someone I know trying to leave me a message.
>

When I was doing some recent testing I grabbed wifey's phone, took it 
away to a noise-friendly zone, changed her phone number in my contacts 
list temporarily, and used her phone to dial mine.  That gives the same 
results as if it was some telemarketer, I think.

-- 
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
   [Sat Mar 26: "Documentation and Portability"]

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

#32757

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 08:13:29 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>The problem is the distraction of the ringing itself.  Looking at the 
>number and trying to decide if it's the doctor's office calling back on 
>an unfamiliar number.  Deciding that if it's the doctor he'll call back 
>(WRONG!) and then clicking the phone on and off again.  Not as annoying 
>as waiting for the four rings before the answering machine comes on.  I 
>could set it to two, but that doesn't give me enough time to get to the 
>phone sometimes.
>
>I've known people who can NOT pick up a ringing phone.  I don't 
>understand them.

What did they do before answering machines, etc?
>
>So far a couple of friends have called and been whitelisted on the 
>Sentry device.  No spam yet that we know of, but it's still early.
>
>-- 
>Cheers, Bev
>    All the toilets were stolen out of the police station.
>    The police have nothing to go on.

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

#32781

On 07/26/2016 01:27 AM, Micky wrote:
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>The problem is the distraction of the ringing itself.  Looking at the
>>number and trying to decide if it's the doctor's office calling back on
>>an unfamiliar number.  Deciding that if it's the doctor he'll call back
>>(WRONG!) and then clicking the phone on and off again.  Not as annoying
>>as waiting for the four rings before the answering machine comes on.  I
>>could set it to two, but that doesn't give me enough time to get to the
>>phone sometimes.
>>
>>I've known people who can NOT pick up a ringing phone.  I don't
>>understand them.
>
> What did they do before answering machines, etc?

He just didn't answer the phone.  Absolutely alien.


-- 
Cheers, Bev
     "Tip: Place your houseplants in front of the television during
     the next presidential debate and watch how leafy they get."
                                                 -- Scott Adams

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

#32792

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 04:27:53 -0400, Micky wrote:

> What did they do before answering machines, etc?

They didn't have automated omni-dialing back then :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

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

#32672

In article <7uyzmzifm1hr$.1mgoc02ujiej3.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:

> >> I often get repeat spam calls. A recent such is from 818-206-4554, ID-ed as
> >> Winnetka, CA, several times a day, several days running. 
> > 
> > block it after the first instance and there will never be a second call.
> 
> That's more bother than just not answering :-) .

it's a lot less bother when the calls don't come through at all

> >> Another (utterly
> >> spoofed) one is 177-049-6489, ID-ed as Unknown Name. YMMV. Cheers, -- tlvp
> > 
> > 177 is an invalid area code and 049 is an invalid exchange. ...
> 
> Bingo again :-) !
> 
> > ... such calls
> > can easily be prevented entirely by blocking all invalid numbers.
> 
> That too is more bother than just not answering :-) .

it's a lot less bother when the calls don't come through at all

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

#32680

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:16:20 -0400, nospam wrote:

> it's a lot less bother when the calls don't come through at all

FSVO "a lot less", maybe. And then, where you repeat yourself,

> it's a lot less bother when the calls don't come through at all

I too can cut'n'paste'n'quote: 'FSVO "a lot less", maybe.'

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

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

#32681

In article <auk28nmrf4vh.n3w5aiptjq25$.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:

> 
> > it's a lot less bother when the calls don't come through at all
> 
> FSVO "a lot less", maybe. And then, where you repeat yourself,

no maybe about it.

you said you get *several* nuisance calls *per* *day*.

that's a *lot* of nuisance calls, which can easily be blocked.

In article <1dqdpn1lw5l7o$.seq581tioqew$.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote: 
> I often get repeat spam calls. A recent such is from 818-206-4554, ID-ed as
> Winnetka, CA, several times a day, several days running. Another (utterly
> spoofed) one is 177-049-6489, ID-ed as Unknown Name. YMMV. Cheers, -- tlvp

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

#32682

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 16:35:12 -0400, nospam wrote:

> you said you get *several* nuisance calls *per* *day*.

Yes. From one particular number. For several days running. Recently. But
not before; and not after. You quote too selectively :-) .

> ... that's a *lot* of nuisance calls, which can easily be blocked.

Not as many as you make it out to be, and much easier *not* to block 'em,
but just let them run their course and peter out. They're much less of an
irritant, after all, than some folks here on c.m.a. are, and far easier to
ignore :-) . HaND. Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

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

#32685

In article <1qq3xw51yiirn$.zo615sql250n.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:

> 
> > you said you get *several* nuisance calls *per* *day*.
> 
> Yes. From one particular number. For several days running. Recently. But
> not before; and not after. You quote too selectively :-) .

you snipped that part out so i put it back.

> > ... that's a *lot* of nuisance calls, which can easily be blocked.
> 
> Not as many as you make it out to be, and much easier *not* to block 'em,

nonsense. it's easy to block a number and only needs to be done once,
whereas if you don't block, the calls keep coming multiple times a day.

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

#32691

On 07/24/2016 08:21 PM, nospam wrote:

>>> you said you get *several* nuisance calls *per* *day*.
>>
>> Yes. From one particular number. For several days running. Recently. But
>> not before; and not after. You quote too selectively :-) .
>
> you snipped that part out so i put it back.
>
>>> ... that's a *lot* of nuisance calls, which can easily be blocked.
>>
>> Not as many as you make it out to be, and much easier *not* to block 'em,
>
> nonsense. it's easy to block a number and only needs to be done once,
> whereas if you don't block, the calls keep coming multiple times a day.

If they're from a different number every time, blocking one doesn't stop 
the rest.

Perce

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

#32692

In article <dvlai5FbkenU1@mid.individual.net>, Percival P. Cassidy
<Nobody@NotMyISP.net> wrote:

> 
> >>> you said you get *several* nuisance calls *per* *day*.
> >>
> >> Yes. From one particular number. For several days running. Recently. But
> >> not before; and not after. You quote too selectively :-) .
> >
> > you snipped that part out so i put it back.
> >
> >>> ... that's a *lot* of nuisance calls, which can easily be blocked.
> >>
> >> Not as many as you make it out to be, and much easier *not* to block 'em,
> >
> > nonsense. it's easy to block a number and only needs to be done once,
> > whereas if you don't block, the calls keep coming multiple times a day.
> 
> If they're from a different number every time, blocking one doesn't stop 
> the rest.

read what she wrote again and pay attention to this particular part:
> >> Yes. From one particular number. 

she also received calls from invalid clid, which is also easy to block.

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

#32655

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 04:00:41 -0400, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 19:08:51 -0400, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
>
>> I hardly ever get a spam call from the same number twice. For most of 
>> them the CallerID shows simply City, State and Number (one or two have 
>> had a Canadian number),
>
>I often get repeat spam calls. A recent such is from 818-206-4554, ID-ed as
>Winnetka, CA, several times a day, several days running. Another (utterly
>spoofed) one is 177-049-6489, ID-ed as Unknown Name. YMMV. Cheers, -- tlvp

Wow.  You remind me that I've gotten 2 or 3 spam calls from the same
number on my cell, and from a number that looks like Imight know it.
Same area  code, 410, and exchange only one different from an exchange
where a lot of people I know live.   I"ve googled and it calls other
people too.       

 2 or 3?  Because the phone keeps displaying the same info day after
day, so it's hard to count. 

How do I get rid of a Voicemail notification without calling in for my
voice mail, and spending time and $2.  I know the phone number and
know it's spam. 

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

#32665

On 07/23/2016 10:35 AM, Micky wrote:

> How do I get rid of a Voicemail notification without calling in for my
> voice mail, and spending time and $2.  I know the phone number and
> know it's spam.

With T-Mobile I can call in from my landline and get voicemail.  I turn 
my phone off, call my own phone number, hit * and then my password and 
it gives me a message menu, one option of which is DELETE.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
    Why should I be tarred with the epithet "loony" merely
    because I have a pet halibut?           --Monty Python

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

#32666

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 15:16:02 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 07/23/2016 10:35 AM, Micky wrote:
>
>> How do I get rid of a Voicemail notification without calling in for my
>> voice mail, and spending time and $2.  I know the phone number and
>> know it's spam.
>
>With T-Mobile I can call in from my landline and get voicemail.  I turn 
>my phone off, call my own phone number, hit * and then my password and 
>it gives me a message menu, one option of which is DELETE.

That's a great idea.  I've had this problem for a week and didn't
think of it.   

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

#32667

On 07/23/2016 08:48 PM, Micky wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 15:16:02 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 07/23/2016 10:35 AM, Micky wrote:
>>
>>> How do I get rid of a Voicemail notification without calling in for my
>>> voice mail, and spending time and $2.  I know the phone number and
>>> know it's spam.
>>
>>With T-Mobile I can call in from my landline and get voicemail.  I turn
>>my phone off, call my own phone number, hit * and then my password and
>>it gives me a message menu, one option of which is DELETE.
>
> That's a great idea.  I've had this problem for a week and didn't
> think of it.

Every one (fewer than a dozen lifetime) has been a wrong number. 
Sometimes they leave messages, sometimes you just hear silent confusion 
and then a hangup.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
    Why should I be tarred with the epithet "loony" merely
    because I have a pet halibut?           --Monty Python

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

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

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

csiph-web