Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #54749 > unrolled thread
| Started by | sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-13 18:07 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-10-01 21:12 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 296 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-13 18:07 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-13 21:23 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-14 01:46 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-14 12:39 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-14 15:47 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-14 22:10 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-14 17:27 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-14 16:09 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-14 19:27 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-14 23:56 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-14 18:08 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-16 21:33 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-17 18:16 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-14 02:20 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-14 12:37 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-14 15:47 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-14 17:59 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 07:45 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-15 09:08 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-15 12:16 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-18 20:43 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-19 13:02 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-19 15:41 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:22 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-19 18:38 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-20 02:06 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-20 07:09 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 10:14 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-20 15:56 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-20 17:36 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 13:33 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-20 21:23 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 16:46 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-23 09:59 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-23 12:28 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-23 10:15 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-23 15:26 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 18:08 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 15:04 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-24 21:33 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 17:28 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-25 12:31 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 09:55 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-24 22:59 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 22:46 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 19:25 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-08-25 16:23 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-25 10:22 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 13:30 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 05:25 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-28 14:07 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-28 09:32 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-24 22:59 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-24 15:43 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 19:25 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-25 12:31 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 09:55 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-28 14:07 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-28 09:29 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-25 09:46 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-25 10:16 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-25 17:41 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 13:45 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-25 12:09 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 15:39 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-26 07:55 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-26 11:10 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-26 10:52 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 21:13 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-26 20:04 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-26 07:57 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-28 14:07 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-25 00:26 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-20 17:39 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 13:46 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-20 12:22 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-20 17:36 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 13:33 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-20 21:23 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 16:46 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-20 15:08 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-20 22:48 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-20 12:42 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 16:18 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-20 21:31 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 16:46 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-20 17:36 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 13:33 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-20 02:06 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-19 17:24 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:11 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-20 02:06 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-23 00:03 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-23 17:59 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-23 14:31 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-23 17:26 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-23 20:53 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 05:31 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 05:26 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-24 10:56 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-24 04:50 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-24 13:20 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 18:59 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-24 22:59 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 18:58 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-24 19:19 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-24 22:59 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-24 04:47 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 09:35 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 18:57 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-24 22:59 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-24 17:48 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-25 01:05 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-24 20:10 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-23 00:02 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-23 09:59 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-23 10:15 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-23 15:26 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-24 10:35 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 09:35 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-24 10:50 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 15:04 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-24 15:15 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 19:25 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-24 20:18 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 09:55 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-25 09:46 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 13:30 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-25 12:09 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-28 14:07 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-28 10:57 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-28 09:41 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-28 13:44 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-28 17:28 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-29 10:16 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-29 11:48 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-29 11:48 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-29 17:32 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-29 23:06 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-29 21:01 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-30 09:58 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-30 10:59 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 12:30 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-08-31 12:21 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 18:32 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-09-01 09:14 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-01 16:43 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-09-01 12:33 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-01 05:55 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-09-01 09:41 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-01 07:06 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-01 10:40 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 05:18 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-01 16:43 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 07:04 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-09-01 09:14 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 05:33 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-09-01 14:36 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 07:48 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-09-05 11:08 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 04:51 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 13:16 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-09-01 14:36 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 14:56 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-09-01 13:37 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 13:21 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-09-01 17:20 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 15:06 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 08:34 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-09-02 08:49 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-09-02 08:23 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2018-09-02 09:12 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 10:00 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 05:12 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 13:11 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 13:07 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 05:06 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 12:59 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-09-05 11:08 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-01 10:40 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-25 17:28 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 14:20 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-25 12:09 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 15:39 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 19:07 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 19:02 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-24 21:33 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 17:28 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-23 10:34 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-23 12:28 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-23 10:15 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-23 15:26 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-23 14:09 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-23 20:12 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-23 16:28 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-23 20:36 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-23 17:28 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-23 20:31 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 05:24 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-24 10:35 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-24 05:15 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 09:35 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-24 21:33 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 17:28 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-24 22:59 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-24 17:50 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-25 01:05 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-25 17:14 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 13:30 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-28 14:07 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-28 07:23 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-29 21:18 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-29 23:06 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-31 14:47 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 10:44 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 07:18 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 10:44 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2018-08-31 09:20 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 12:30 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 13:43 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 16:49 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 15:24 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 16:53 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-09-01 09:38 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 13:03 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-08-31 17:44 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 15:20 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-28 10:57 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-29 21:18 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-29 23:06 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-31 14:47 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 07:11 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 10:44 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-09-01 12:33 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-01 10:40 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-09-05 11:08 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-09-05 11:58 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-05 09:15 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-09-05 13:38 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 04:53 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-05 14:13 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-06 01:36 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-09-06 14:24 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-05 09:15 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 04:55 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-05 07:18 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-05 10:49 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 04:57 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-05 13:35 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 08:30 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-06 07:04 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-06 20:23 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-06 18:00 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-06 21:13 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 07:02 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-09-07 13:33 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-07 08:04 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-07 11:09 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-09-07 16:50 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 05:15 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-09-07 19:26 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 11:32 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-09-09 14:34 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-08 07:14 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-09-08 15:33 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-09-07 15:04 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 05:11 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-06 19:34 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-06 01:34 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-06 00:16 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Josh Nack" <klu098@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 05:25 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-25 10:47 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-25 12:31 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-24 11:00 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-24 12:36 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 18:52 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-24 19:29 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-24 21:33 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-24 10:35 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-24 05:06 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-19 08:18 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-14 22:10 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-14 16:01 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-15 10:51 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-10-03 07:00 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-10-01 08:20 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 17:18 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-10-01 10:57 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-10-02 13:03 +0800
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 07:45 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-10-02 07:42 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:33 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-10-02 12:17 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 07:48 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-10-03 04:46 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Apd" <not@all.invalid> - 2018-10-01 21:12 +0100
Page 8 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 15 Next page →
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 09:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <300820180958221270%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55267 |
In article <pm7q64$s75$1@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <123456@123456.com> wrote: > > no need to buckle up in an airplane either. when's the last time that > > actually mattered? just tell the flight attendant that the odds are > > in your favour. > > Even though it's a low probability, if the plane were to crash, not > wearing a seat belt could cost me my LIFE. However in a bank error hack > I lose NOTHING so I'll keep my text based 2FA. it's not just crashing. in sudden turbulence, you could be injured, and even if it's minor, it could have been prevented. > Those were all really pretty lame analogies, don't you think? no. what's clear is you don't put a very priority on security. hopefully for your sake you won't find out the hard way why that's incredibly foolish. while you may *eventually* recover lost funds (and not necessarily all of it, as what happened in one of the links i provided), it won't be processed the same day, so you could be in the hole for weeks, if not months until everything is finally settled.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <123456@123456.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 10:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pm9b9b$31q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55285 |
On 8/30/2018 6:58 AM, nospam wrote: > what's clear is you don't put a very priority on security. I balance security with practicality. I think most people do. > hopefully for your sake you won't find out the hard way The odds are in my favor millions to one according to YOUR cite. > while you may *eventually* recover lost funds If the bank is in error I WILL (not may) recover my funds. > it won't be processed the same day,> so you could be in the hole for > weeks, if not months until everything is finally settled. You don't have a clue how long it takes to settle a BANK CAUSED loss. My GUESS is that it will be pretty quick... likely before I get pissed off enough to call the local TV station for a spot on the nightly news. Some other horrible security errors I make: I give the waitress my credit card when paying a restaurant bill. I swipe my credit card at gas stations even though there might be a skimmer. I leave my credit card on file at several websites for instant purchases. I leave my checking account number on file at companies with whom I have reoccurring payments. Some security measures I use: My bank texts and emails me of any withdrawals (over $10) so I IMMEDIATELY know of fraud or withdrawal errors. My credit card company texts and emails me of all charges (over $10) so I IMMEDIATELY know of any fraud or incorrect charges. And..with text 2FA I IMMEDIATELY know when someone is trying to use my password on any of my protected apps and can IMMEDIATELY take action. So instead of cowering in my bed worrying about if I should drive a tank on the freeway or have a padlocked steel door on my house (and those ARE good analogies) I just take reasonable precautions and enjoy life. You ought to give it a try... ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 12:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <310820181230159097%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55290 |
In article <pm9b9b$31q$1@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <123456@123456.com> wrote: > > > what's clear is you don't put a very priority on security. > > I balance security with practicality. I think most people do. they don't. most people consider it a hassle. the most popular pin code is 1234, followed by 1111, making up about 1/6th of cards/devices. <https://lifehacker.com/5944567/the-most-and-least-common-pin-numbers-an d-numeric-passwords-is-yours-one-of-them> So out of the 10,000 possible combinations for four-digit codes, which is the most popular? You guessed it: 1234. An alarming ~11% of the 3.4 million passwords are 1234. The top 20 passwords account for nearly 27% of the total. ... Expanding the analysis to all-numeric passwords (not just four-digit ones), guess which are the most popular? Yup, 12345 for 5 digits, 123456 for 6 digits, and so on. the most popular passwords are also incredibly weak: <http://fortune.com/2017/12/19/the-25-most-used-hackable-passwords-2017- star-wars-freedom/> And yet, people continue to use easy-to-guess passwords to protect their information. For example, ³123456² and ³password² retain their top two spots on the list‹for the fourth consecutive year. Variations of these two ³worst passwords² make up six of the remaining passwords on the list. ... There are some newcomers, including ³starwars,² which joined the list at No. 16. Other new passwords to join the list include ³freedom,² ³monkey² (that¹s puzzler), ³letmein,² and ³hello.² ... In case it isn¹t clear, SplashData warns that ³use of any of the passwords on this list put users at grave risk for identity theft.² people also use real answers for the (in)security questions, which usually ask for information that's public record or otherwise can easily be determined, such as mother's maiden name, first car you owned, street you grew up on, etc., making it *trivial* to answer them correctly. i've even seen answers presented as multiple choice, which makes it even *easier* to guess correctly. tl;dr people do not put a high priority on security. they just pretend it won't happen. > > hopefully for your sake you won't find out the hard way > > The odds are in my favor millions to one according to YOUR cite. they aren't. you're assuming the number of incidents is will remain constant and that nobody will target you. the former is completely wrong (it's rapidly increasing) and all it takes is pissing off the wrong person for the latter to also be wrong. > > while you may *eventually* recover lost funds > > If the bank is in error I WILL (not may) recover my funds. except that it's not a bank error if you did not properly secure your account. they also won't cover penalties assessed by *other* companies while your account was locked down, which could include account shutdowns. american express is well known for that due to a single rejected payment, regardless of reason. <http://time.com/money/5245878/cell-phone-porting-scam-t-mobile/> In total, she estimates she lost at least $3,500 from the ordeal... ...Many of those calls were about the $6,000 that was fraudulently transferred out of her account ‹ money that Chase told her she could not get back right away because it was a direct-deposit transfer, not a debit- or credit-card transaction. It took 21 days for the bank to return that money. The bank also froze $14,000 in another one of her accounts, which resulted in her incurring interest and late fees on other bills. None of her direct debit transfers worked either, so bills for utilities like water and trash didn¹t go through, and Clifford had to pay fees for voided checks, too. > > it won't be processed the same day,> so you could be in the hole for > > weeks, if not months until everything is finally settled. > > You don't have a clue how long it takes to settle a BANK CAUSED loss. My > GUESS is that it will be pretty quick... likely before I get pissed off > enough to call the local TV station for a spot on the nightly news. see above, and i do. > Some other horrible security errors I make: > > I give the waitress my credit card when paying a restaurant bill. that's incredibly stupid. unfortunately, restaurants in the usa work that way, for now. elsewhere, it's pay at the table, and fortunately, that is starting to become more common in the usa due to the high demand for more secure payment methods, namely apple/google pay. many restaurants now have tableside order/payment terminals, such as <https://www.ziosk.com> and <https://www.tablesafe.com>. > I swipe my credit card at gas stations even though there might be a > skimmer. that's also a bad idea. fortunately, most gas stations now support apple/google pay as well as contactless cards, rendering skimmers/shimmers ineffective. or just pay cash and save 5-10c/gal. > I leave my credit card on file at several websites for instant > purchases. that worked out incredibly well for target, neiman-marcus, macy's, saks fifth avenue and numerous other merchants. <https://www.wired.com/2014/01/neiman-marcus-hack/> MORE THAN 1.1 million customers were affected in the recent hack of high-end retailer Neiman Marcus, the company has finally revealed. always use a virtual number online (and in stores if possible), or better yet, use apple/google pay, which works both online and in stores, almost everywhere that contactless is enabled (even if the store doesn't realize it). > I leave my checking account number on file at companies with > whom I have reoccurring payments. that's also a huge risk. if that company is hacked, your bank account can easily be drained. > Some security measures I use: > > My bank texts and emails me of any withdrawals (over $10) so I > IMMEDIATELY know of fraud or withdrawal errors. My credit card company > texts and emails me of all charges (over $10) so I IMMEDIATELY know of > any fraud or incorrect charges. And..with text 2FA I IMMEDIATELY know > when someone is trying to use my password on any of my protected apps > and can IMMEDIATELY take action. except if your phone is hijacked, you won't get *any* text alerts at all, something you still don't grasp. a better method is to use the bank's own apps, which do not use sms, so even if your phone was hijacked, you will still get the notifications, even when your phone can no longer make or receive calls or texts anymore. it will also work when there is no cellular service, such as on an airplane via inflight wifi. > So instead of cowering in my bed worrying about if I should drive a tank > on the freeway or have a padlocked steel door on my house (and those ARE > good analogies) I just take reasonable precautions and enjoy life. You > ought to give it a try... ;) those are not good analogies at all. in many cases, more secure methods are *easier*, such as apple pay, which is not only significantly more secure, but also faster. the merchant gets a device-specific virtual card number (not your actual card number) and a one-time token. even if the merchant was hacked, the number they get is useless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 12:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pmc4fj$27t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55322 |
On 8/31/2018 9:30 AM, nospam wrote: > 123456789 <123456@123456.com> wrote: > the most popular pin code is 1234, followed by 1111, making up about > 1/6th of cards/devices. I thought about using 3333 on my Fire HD 10 tablet because it was an easy location on the touch pad to hit 4 times. But being the big security conscious person I am I settled on 3336. > the most popular passwords are also incredibly weak: I was amazed that Windows 10 actually allows me to use a ONE character account password. So I use the letter "p" (only). My theory is that no one would ever think to try a one letter password...would you? > And yet, people continue to use easy-to-guess passwords to protect > their information. I read through all the most popular passwords in your link. I was relieved to find that "p" was not included... > people also use real answers for the (in)security questions, which > usually ask for information that's public record or otherwise can > easily be determined, such as mother's maiden name, I always add the number "1" at the end each answer. For example my birth city would be "Chicago1" instead of "Chicago". That should foil the public information hack. > people do not put a high priority on security. they just pretend it > won't happen. Generally "all people act this one way" statements cannot be true. >> The odds are in my favor millions to one according to YOUR cite. > you're assuming the number of incidents is will remain constant and > that nobody will target you. Agreed. > all it takes is pissing off the wrong person for the latter to also > be wrong. True for all walks of life. For example road rage comes to mind. >> If the bank is in error I WILL (not may) recover my funds. > > except that it's not a bank error if you did not properly secure your > account. The bank error WE were discussing was someone talking a bank employee into unauthorized access to my account. > they also won't cover penalties assessed by *other* companies while > your account was locked down, I once lost control of a large Wells Fargo account due to bank error. Because of that I was unable to transfer money and suffered a penalty from a third party. Wells Fargo DID pay my penalty, several hundred dollars, as well as writing apology letters to me and the company. >> I swipe my credit card at gas stations even though there might be a >> skimmer. > > that's also a bad idea. or just pay cash and save 5-10c/gal. Same price here, cash or card. And I get 2% back from the CC company when I use the card. > that worked out incredibly well for target, neiman-marcus, macy's, > saks fifth avenue and numerous other merchants. MORE THAN 1.1 > million customers were affected in the recent hack of high-end > retailer Neiman Marcus, the company has finally revealed. If an unauthorized person used my CC number I would know IMMEDIATELY through text and email. And after IMMEDIATELY notifying the CC company I'd have a new card by the next day with no loss to me. >> I leave my checking account number on file at companies with whom >> I have reoccurring payments. > > that's also a huge risk. if that company is hacked, your bank account > can easily be drained. The alternative is to mail personal checks to the companies which also have my account number on them. Which is safer, online or US Mail? Judging from the amount of mis-delivered mail I get... >> My bank texts and emails me of any withdrawals (over $10) so I >> IMMEDIATELY know of fraud or withdrawal errors. My credit card >> company texts and emails me of all charges (over $10) so I >> IMMEDIATELY know of any fraud or incorrect charges. And..with text >> 2FA I IMMEDIATELY know when someone is trying to use my password >> on any of my protected apps and can IMMEDIATELY take action. > > except if your phone is hijacked, you won't get *any* text alerts at > all, something you still don't grasp. Read it again. I ALSO GET EMAILS and actually own MORE THAN ONE DEVICE to read them on. > a better method is to use the bank's own apps, which do not use sms, I do use the banks app. > even if your phone was hijacked, you will still get the > notifications, even when your phone can no longer make or receive > calls or texts anymore. it will also work when there is no cellular > service, such as on an airplane via inflight wifi. I get phone hijacked at the same time I happen to be flying? That should increase the odds to at least 10 million to one... > in many cases, more secure methods are *easier*, such as apple pay, > which is not only significantly more secure, but also faster. > > the merchant gets a device-specific virtual card number (not your > actual card number) and a one-time token. even if the merchant was > hacked, the number they get is useless. I have a chipped CC. Merchants don't get the number.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 18:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <310820181832152349%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55333 |
In article <pmc4fj$27t$1@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > > the most popular pin code is 1234, followed by 1111, making up about > > 1/6th of cards/devices. > > I thought about using 3333 on my Fire HD 10 tablet because it was an > easy location on the touch pad to hit 4 times. But being the big > security conscious person I am I settled on 3336. shit. that's the same code i use. > > the most popular passwords are also incredibly weak: > > I was amazed that Windows 10 actually allows me to use a ONE character > account password. So I use the letter "p" (only). My theory is that no > one would ever think to try a one letter password...would you? a one letter password can be cracked in a fraction of a second without even trying very hard. not that anyone needs to crack anything. just pull the hd/ssd and read what's on it, no password needed. on the other hand, if the hd/ssd is is encrypted, they won't get very far, unless it uses an easily cracked password, that is, such as p. > > people do not put a high priority on security. they just pretend it > > won't happen. > > Generally "all people act this one way" statements cannot be true. i didn't say all. however, most don't give a shit and many don't realize just how easy it actually is. > >> If the bank is in error I WILL (not may) recover my funds. > > > > except that it's not a bank error if you did not properly secure your > > account. > > The bank error WE were discussing was someone talking a bank employee > into unauthorized access to my account. how is it the bank's error when the bank follows proper procedure to verify the person, who gives the correct answers? a bank error would be accessing someone's account *without* proper verification, perhaps skipping some of those questions (and that also includes randomly snooping people's accounts, which is grounds for termination). > > they also won't cover penalties assessed by *other* companies while > > your account was locked down, > > I once lost control of a large Wells Fargo account due to bank error. > Because of that I was unable to transfer money and suffered a penalty > from a third party. Wells Fargo DID pay my penalty, several hundred > dollars, as well as writing apology letters to me and the company. that doesn't mean every bank works that way, not to mention the time and hassle, which doesn't have a price. <http://time.com/money/5245878/cell-phone-porting-scam-t-mobile/> In total, she estimates she lost at least $3,500 from the ordeal... > >> I swipe my credit card at gas stations even though there might be a > >> skimmer. > > > > that's also a bad idea. or just pay cash and save 5-10c/gal. > > Same price here, cash or card. that's unusual, and there almost certainly stations near you that offer cash discounts. > And I get 2% back from the CC company > when I use the card. there are cards that offer more than 2% for fuel. however, saving 10c/gal is usually better than what a card offers, especially with prices in the $2.50/gal range. > > that worked out incredibly well for target, neiman-marcus, macy's, > > saks fifth avenue and numerous other merchants. MORE THAN 1.1 > > million customers were affected in the recent hack of high-end > > retailer Neiman Marcus, the company has finally revealed. > > If an unauthorized person used my CC number I would know IMMEDIATELY > through text and email. And after IMMEDIATELY notifying the CC company > I'd have a new card by the next day with no loss to me. except when they change your contact information after having pwned the account but before using it. any alert you get, if you get one at all, would be too late. > >> I leave my checking account number on file at companies with whom > >> I have reoccurring payments. > > > > that's also a huge risk. if that company is hacked, your bank account > > can easily be drained. > > The alternative is to mail personal checks to the companies which also > have my account number on them. Which is safer, online or US Mail? > Judging from the amount of mis-delivered mail I get... nope. the alternative is to use online billpay, which is sent via ach in almost every case and normally processed in one day (same day in some cases). pushing payments also protects against an erroneous bill that pulls more money than expected, which can bounce or cause other payments to bounce or both. another option is use a credit card and get cash or points back. paper checks are old school. > > in many cases, more secure methods are *easier*, such as apple pay, > > which is not only significantly more secure, but also faster. > > > > the merchant gets a device-specific virtual card number (not your > > actual card number) and a one-time token. even if the merchant was > > hacked, the number they get is useless. > > I have a chipped CC. Merchants don't get the number. oh yes they do. get a card reader off of ebay ($5-10ish) and you will see exactly what they get, which includes not just the card number, but your full name and address. with apple pay, they get only a dan and dcvv. there is no name. it usually shows up as 'valued customer' or something similar, which means merchants can't data mine your purchases.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 09:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pmedsj$jo2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55369 |
On 8/31/2018 3:32 PM, nospam wrote: > 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > a one letter password can be cracked in a fraction of a second > without even trying very hard. Nope. Just hitting the "p" key alone won't do it. It has to be followed by the "Enter" key to work. So you can't just hit random keys hoping it will unlock. Most people would try things like DOBs, kids names and your infamous 12345 etc. Unless you know ahead of time that it is a one letter password it's perhaps harder to guess since no one would expect it. Would it fool you? I'm guessing that it would since you ignored this question last time... > how is it the bank's error when the bank follows proper procedure to > verify the person, who gives the correct answers? It's either the bank's fault or my fault. If the bank is conned through no fault of mine it IS the bank's error. >> If an unauthorized person used my CC number I would know >> IMMEDIATELY through text and email > except when they change your contact information after having pwned > the account They pwned my CC account now too?? Bad day. Well anyway all the same facts apply as to banks. Not my fault = no loss to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 16:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <010920181643530233%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55412 |
In article <pmedsj$jo2$1@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > > a one letter password can be cracked in a fraction of a second > > without even trying very hard. > > Nope. Just hitting the "p" key alone won't do it. It has to be followed > by the "Enter" key to work. So you can't just hit random keys hoping it > will unlock. password cracking is not done by hitting random keys and hoping it works. > > how is it the bank's error when the bank follows proper procedure to > > verify the person, who gives the correct answers? > > It's either the bank's fault or my fault. If the bank is conned through > no fault of mine it IS the bank's error. nope. if the bank followed proper procedure to verify the person, they have not made an error. they did exactly what they were supposed to do in that situation, using information available to them at that time. if they did *not* follow procedure, then they did make an error. very simple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 12:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8eikod53d7rb7rqo32u0ho35hevq79htic@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #55322 |
On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:30:15 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> I swipe my credit card at gas stations even though there might be a >> skimmer. > >that's also a bad idea. > >fortunately, most gas stations now support apple/google pay as well as >contactless cards, rendering skimmers/shimmers ineffective. > >or just pay cash and save 5-10c/gal. I use a credit card for all purchases because I get 1% cashback. Why lose money by paying cash when you can get it 1% cheaper by using a card, and get a few weeks longer to pay as well?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 05:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pme28k$slb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55390 |
On 9/1/2018 4:33 AM, Chris in Makati wrote: <snip> > I use a credit card for all purchases because I get 1% cashback. Why > lose money by paying cash when you can get it 1% cheaper by using a > card, and get a few weeks longer to pay as well? Costco is 4% back with their credit card for gasoline purchased at gas stations (not at convenience stores with gas stations). Once you factor in the 4% rebate, it's rarely cheaper to pay cash at stations with a discount for cash. Costco's own gas station does not take cash, and is usually the least expensive gasoline even before the rebate, often 15-20¢ per gallon cheaper. While some of the Costco stations do now have contactless payment, you still have to first stick in your Costco card, so there's no point in then using contactless. What they should do is to let you use contactless to validate your membership via the Costco Citibank Visa. This would also save about ten seconds per customer. In California, Costco has a contract with BP/Arco to supply the fuel. In Northern California BP/Arco uses fuel from the Shell refinery because BP has no refinery up here (BP/Arco has a reciprocal agreement). 1% is a very low cashback amount. Consider these cards: Citibank Double Cash (2%, no fee). Alliant Credit Union (3%, no fee the first year, 2.5% $59 fee subsequent years)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 09:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <QrKdnXxop_2SChfGnZ2dnUU7-cednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #55392 |
On 2018-09-01 08:55, sms wrote:
> On 9/1/2018 4:33 AM, Chris in Makati wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I use a credit card for all purchases because I get 1% cashback. Why
>> lose money by paying cash when you can get it 1% cheaper by using a
>> card, and get a few weeks longer to pay as well?
>
> Costco is 4% back with their credit card for gasoline purchased at gas
> stations (not at convenience stores with gas stations). Once you factor
> in the 4% rebate, it's rarely cheaper to pay cash at stations with a
> discount for cash.
>
> Costco's own gas station does not take cash, and is usually the least
> expensive gasoline even before the rebate, often 15-20¢ per gallon
> cheaper. While some of the Costco stations do now have contactless
> payment, you still have to first stick in your Costco card, so there's
> no point in then using contactless. What they should do is to let you
> use contactless to validate your membership via the Costco Citibank
> Visa. This would also save about ten seconds per customer.
>
> In California, Costco has a contract with BP/Arco to supply the fuel. In
> Northern California BP/Arco uses fuel from the Shell refinery because BP
> has no refinery up here (BP/Arco has a reciprocal agreement).
>
> 1% is a very low cashback amount. Consider these cards:
>
> Citibank Double Cash (2%, no fee).
> Alliant Credit Union (3%, no fee the first year, 2.5% $59 fee subsequent
> years)
You do realize that these cashbacks are charged to you in the form of
higher prices, right? (It's the merchant who pays these fees to the
card co.)
Still, it's a winning game for the consumer, considering the pool of
people paying at different rates.
--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 07:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pme6dp$vd0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55395 |
On 9/1/2018 6:41 AM, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2018-09-01 08:55, sms wrote: >> On 9/1/2018 4:33 AM, Chris in Makati wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> I use a credit card for all purchases because I get 1% cashback. Why >>> lose money by paying cash when you can get it 1% cheaper by using a >>> card, and get a few weeks longer to pay as well? >> >> Costco is 4% back with their credit card for gasoline purchased at gas >> stations (not at convenience stores with gas stations). Once you >> factor in the 4% rebate, it's rarely cheaper to pay cash at stations >> with a discount for cash. >> >> Costco's own gas station does not take cash, and is usually the least >> expensive gasoline even before the rebate, often 15-20¢ per gallon >> cheaper. While some of the Costco stations do now have contactless >> payment, you still have to first stick in your Costco card, so there's >> no point in then using contactless. What they should do is to let you >> use contactless to validate your membership via the Costco Citibank >> Visa. This would also save about ten seconds per customer. >> >> In California, Costco has a contract with BP/Arco to supply the fuel. >> In Northern California BP/Arco uses fuel from the Shell refinery >> because BP has no refinery up here (BP/Arco has a reciprocal agreement). >> >> 1% is a very low cashback amount. Consider these cards: >> >> Citibank Double Cash (2%, no fee). >> Alliant Credit Union (3%, no fee the first year, 2.5% $59 fee >> subsequent years) > > You do realize that these cashbacks are charged to you in the form of > higher prices, right? (It's the merchant who pays these fees to the > card co.) Exactly. So you really want to offset those higher prices with the largest cash rebate possible. A business is free to offer a cash discount if they wish, as most gas stations now do, though for some items you would want the consumer protections, including extended warranty, of a credit card. > Still, it's a winning game for the consumer, considering the pool of > people paying at different rates. The goal of the cashback is to get consumers to run up credit card debt. The 2.5% rewards cards don't process at that rate for merchants. Using a credit card to pay is also respectful of the other customers in line behind you since it's much faster than a cash transaction. Also, remember that cash transactions have a real cost to the merchant as well. They pay for armored car service. They have to account for counterfeiting. They have to employ more people because cash transactions take longer. In fast food restaurants, employees have to change gloves every time they go between food prep and collecting cash--I remember watching in amazement at the number of disposable gloves that were being used per minute at one place! At one Costco near me the food court now uses tablets for ordering and paying, with only one cash register available for those insistent on paying cash. It's sped things up enormously. Costco is paying extremely low merchant fees to Citibank, way less than the 4% gasoline rebate. To Costco, it's well worth the expense. IT brings people to the gas station and then to the store. They spend more money when paying with a credit card. It speeds up the checkout process by discouraging cash and check transactions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 10:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <010920181040332189%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55398 |
In article <pme6dp$vd0$1@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: > Using a credit card to pay is also respectful of the other customers in > line behind you since it's much faster than a cash transaction. no it isn't, other than if someone is fishing for exact change, which is rare. paying cash is normally faster, sometimes quite a bit faster, which is why there are sometimes cash-only lines. credit card payment terminals often require one or more taps to confirm the purchase, although that's much better now that signatures are no longer required. sometimes a card is not readable and requires multiple swipes, dips or taps.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 05:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fv0716Ffs41U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55402 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:010920181040332189%nospam@nospam.invalid... > In article <pme6dp$vd0$1@dont-email.me>, sms > <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: > >> Using a credit card to pay is also respectful of the other customers in >> line behind you since it's much faster than a cash transaction. > > no it isn't, other than if someone is fishing for exact change, which > is rare. > > paying cash is normally faster, BULLSHIT. > sometimes quite a bit faster, BULLSHIT. > which is why there are sometimes cash-only lines. Nope. > credit card payment terminals often require one or more taps to confirm > the purchase, although that's much better now that signatures are no > longer required. sometimes a card is not readable and requires multiple > swipes, dips or taps. And apple pay is even faster and never needs one or more taps to confirm purchase.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 16:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <010920181643530270%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55420 |
In article <fv0716Ffs41U1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > > paying cash is normally faster, > > BULLSHIT. not bullshit. other than people who fish for exact change (which is rare), cash is very fast. at a restaurant, leave the cash on the table. done. a lot of fast food sellers price their offerings to avoid dealing with coins. > > > credit card payment terminals often require one or more taps to confirm > > the purchase, although that's much better now that signatures are no > > longer required. sometimes a card is not readable and requires multiple > > swipes, dips or taps. > > And apple pay is even faster and never needs one or more taps to confirm > purchase. sometimes it does need additional taps, depending on the card and payment system, regardless if it's apple pay or not, including a choice of credit/debit/giftcard, confirming the amount and/or a pin code. in some cases, the cashier has to take an extra step to submit the total amount to enable the contactless reader.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 07:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fv0df4Fh4okU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55436 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> paying cash is normally faster, >> BULLSHIT. > not bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit, as always with you. > other than people who fish for exact > change (which is rare), cash is very fast. ApplePay is much faster, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist. And you have to fart around getting the cash from the ATM too. >>> credit card payment terminals often require one or more >>> taps to confirm the purchase, although that's much better >>> now that signatures are no longer required. sometimes a >>> card is not readable and requires multiple swipes, dips or taps. >> And apple pay is even faster and never needs >> one or more taps to confirm purchase. > sometimes it does need additional taps, Hardly ever, just with the major item purchase. Last time I had to was a new battery for the car. I don't have to for tires for the car. > depending on the card and payment system, regardless > if it's apple pay or not, including a choice of credit/debit > /giftcard, confirming the amount and/or a pin code. Never any choice with applepay. > in some cases, the cashier has to take an extra step to > submit the total amount to enable the contactless reader. Never happens here. Some of your retailers have fucked systems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 09:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pmedtd$jo2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55398 |
On 9/1/2018 7:06 AM, sms wrote: > On 9/1/2018 6:41 AM, Alan Browne wrote: >> On 2018-09-01 08:55, sms wrote: >>> On 9/1/2018 4:33 AM, Chris in Makati wrote: >>> Costco's own gas station does not take cash, and is usually the >>> least expensive gasoline even before the rebate, often 15-20¢ >>> per gallon The lines at my two Costco stations are often 3 to 5 cars deep. Shades of the old gas shortages. Life is too short. >> You do realize that these cashbacks are charged to you in the form >> of higher prices, right? Even if I didn't use CC cashback I'd still get charged the higher prices so makes sense to get the cash back. > The goal of the cashback is to get consumers to run up credit card > debt. Requires some fortitude to pay the balance every month. The CC companies are betting otherwise. > Using a credit card to pay is also respectful of the other customers > in line behind you since it's much faster than a cash transaction. Just about everybody I see uses a CC these days. I do for everything no matter the price. Most transactions for me take less than ten seconds from the time I insert my card. That includes the amount verification notification I get texted to my phone. > Also, remember that cash transactions have a real cost to the > merchant as well. Cash transactions are a pain for me too. Especially the loose change. > In fast food restaurants, employees have to change gloves every time > they go between food prep and collecting cash-- Watch the employees close. From what I've seen the gloves are more for show than sanitation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 05:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fv07rvFg2chU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55413 |
"123456789" <12345@12345.com> wrote in message news:pmedtd$jo2$2@dont-email.me... > On 9/1/2018 7:06 AM, sms wrote: >> On 9/1/2018 6:41 AM, Alan Browne wrote: >>> On 2018-09-01 08:55, sms wrote: >>>> On 9/1/2018 4:33 AM, Chris in Makati wrote: > >>>> Costco's own gas station does not take cash, and is usually the >>>> least expensive gasoline even before the rebate, often 15-20¢ >>>> per gallon > > The lines at my two Costco stations are often 3 to 5 cars deep. Shades > of the old gas shortages. Life is too short. > >>> You do realize that these cashbacks are charged to you in the form >>> of higher prices, right? > > Even if I didn't use CC cashback I'd still get charged the higher prices > so makes sense to get the cash back. > >> The goal of the cashback is to get consumers to run up credit card >> debt. > > Requires some fortitude to pay the balance every month. Not when you automate that. I do. > The CC companies are betting otherwise. >> Using a credit card to pay is also respectful of the other customers >> in line behind you since it's much faster than a cash transaction. > > Just about everybody I see uses a CC these days. The main exception here is Aldi which has a surcharge for credit cards. Its only 0.5% but you do see a lot more using cash there. But that may be because Aldi doesn’t have self checkouts and I never use a manned checkout when a self checkout is available. > I do for everything no matter the price. Most transactions for me take > less than ten seconds from the time I insert my card. I pay using ApplePay so its much quicker to just wave the phone at the terminal. > That includes the amount verification > notification I get texted to my phone. >> Also, remember that cash transactions have a real cost to the merchant as >> well. > Cash transactions are a pain for me too. Especially the loose change. Yeah, me too. But nowhere I shop requires cash for small transactions, less than $5, anymore. >> In fast food restaurants, employees have to change gloves every time they >> go between food prep and collecting cash-- A few of ours wont accept cash anymore, only cards. > Watch the employees close. From what I've seen the gloves are more for > show than sanitation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 14:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pmf0o8$904$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55421 |
On 9/1/2018 12:33 PM, Rod Speed wrote: > "123456789" <12345@12345.com> wrote in message >> Just about everybody I see uses a CC these days. > The main exception here is Aldi which has a surcharge for credit > cards. No surcharge places in my area that I know of. But there are a few stores that refuse my cashback card. For those I use a backup card. > I pay using ApplePay so its much quicker I don't let 5 seconds one way or the other bother me too much. > nowhere I shop requires cash for small transactions, less than $5, > anymore. Yup. I whip out the CC for a dollar ice cream cone and no one cares. Easier for me and easier for the cashier...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 07:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fv0forFhjkvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55439 |
123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote >>> Just about everybody I see uses a CC these days. >> The main exception here is Aldi which has a surcharge for credit cards. > No surcharge places in my area that I know of. Yeah, it’s the only one that does that here and since it’s a foreign operation, not surprising that they do things differently. They no longer have a surcharge in Britain tho, not clear why the difference. > But there are a few stores that refuse my cashback card. For those I use a > backup card. >> I pay using ApplePay so its much quicker > I don't let 5 seconds one way or the other bother me too much. Its not the time, just the convenience of just waving the phone at the machine instead of farting around getting the right card out of the wallet, waving that at the machine, putting it back in the wallet etc. >> nowhere I shop requires cash for small transactions, less than $5, >> anymore. > Yup. I whip out the CC for a dollar ice cream cone and no one cares. > Easier for me and easier for the cashier... And even better when paying for petrol for the car etc not having to go inside to pay for it;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-05 11:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ug8vod5m4otd8rj3k3njp3cvsp9fnfq6s1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #55421 |
On Sun, 2 Sep 2018 05:33:07 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >>> In fast food restaurants, employees have to change gloves every time they >>> go between food prep and collecting cash-- > >A few of ours wont accept cash anymore, only cards. Buses here in London won't accept cash either. You have to pay with a contactless card, Apple Pay, Android Pay etc., or use one of their prepaid "Oyster" payment cards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web