Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #57320 > unrolled thread
| Started by | K120 <hunterfox@interweb.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-08 10:52 -0500 |
| Last post | 2018-11-17 10:30 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 170 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
8MB sms pic K120 <hunterfox@interweb.net> - 2018-11-08 10:52 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic KenW <ken1943@invalid.net> - 2018-11-08 09:11 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-08 22:31 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic K120 <hunterfox@interweb.net> - 2018-11-09 17:07 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-10 02:36 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 11:34 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-11 11:47 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-11 13:08 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-11 17:23 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic K120 <hunterfox@interweb.net> - 2018-11-11 12:37 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 19:19 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic K120 <hunterfox@interweb.net> - 2018-11-11 16:34 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 07:53 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-12 08:11 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-12 02:29 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-11-12 12:22 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-12 14:02 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-11-12 20:01 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 02:27 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-11-13 10:51 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 11:05 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-11-13 12:39 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-12 19:02 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-12 21:16 +0100
[OT] Ping: Piet (was: 8MB sms pic) Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-15 22:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Ping: Piet Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-11-16 09:46 +0100
Re: [OT] Ping: Piet Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-16 11:50 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-12 06:19 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-12 02:20 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-11 17:21 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic K120 <hunterfox@interweb.net> - 2018-11-11 16:44 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-12 06:21 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 08:17 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-12 02:32 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-11 20:47 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-12 06:27 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-11 23:40 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-12 19:02 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-12 19:07 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-12 21:28 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-12 21:21 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 20:25 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 02:29 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 20:39 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 08:11 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:03 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:40 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:50 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 11:13 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-13 10:26 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 13:08 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-13 11:43 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 13:49 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-13 12:06 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 08:28 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-14 09:15 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-14 10:17 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-14 12:53 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-14 15:38 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-15 00:04 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-15 00:25 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 18:46 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-14 15:38 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 18:57 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-15 12:37 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 22:40 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-15 16:06 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-15 21:14 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 22:16 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 18:41 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-14 14:33 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 18:57 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 18:48 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 18:36 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-13 20:32 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:49 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-16 14:30 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:12 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 10:21 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 18:51 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-12 19:22 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 21:42 -0400
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-12 19:54 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 22:06 -0400
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-12 20:26 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 22:40 -0400
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-12 21:23 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 23:32 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-12 22:21 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 00:50 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-13 08:18 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 19:02 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:29 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-13 08:18 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 08:27 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-12 23:34 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:32 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:08 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:43 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:54 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 19:08 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 13:22 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-13 18:31 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 13:49 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-13 19:16 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 14:24 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-14 09:34 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-14 09:31 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-14 09:15 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-14 17:28 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-14 12:53 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-14 18:47 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-14 14:33 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-14 19:00 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-14 14:33 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-14 15:38 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-15 00:04 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-15 00:25 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-15 12:09 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-15 12:53 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-15 15:08 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-15 15:03 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-15 17:10 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-15 15:40 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-15 16:27 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-15 12:09 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-15 19:01 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-15 14:51 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-15 21:11 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-15 16:47 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-16 14:43 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-16 13:11 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-17 01:10 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-16 20:10 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-17 11:24 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-15 10:32 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-16 14:48 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-14 09:34 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-13 18:05 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 19:10 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 13:22 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-16 15:03 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 08:23 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-13 11:40 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:46 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-13 06:35 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 08:17 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:03 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:37 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-13 06:12 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 00:21 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-13 11:57 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:34 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-13 11:59 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:38 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-13 06:08 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 00:21 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:34 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-13 08:12 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-13 06:06 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-13 15:04 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-12 10:54 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic M.L. <me@privacy.invalid> - 2018-11-13 06:59 -0600
Re: 8MB sms pic nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-13 09:03 -0500
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-11 13:11 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-11 17:27 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-12 02:37 +0100
Re: 8MB sms pic KenW <ken1943@invalid.net> - 2018-11-08 09:19 -0700
Re: 8MB sms pic musika <mUs1Ka@NOSPAMexcite.com> - 2018-11-09 11:48 +0000
Re: 8MB sms pic K120 <hunterfox@interweb.net> - 2018-11-17 10:30 -0500
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 19:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g50i81Flbq9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57475 |
On 13/11/2018 15.54, nospam wrote:
> In article <g50686FikcoU4@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> No VoIP providers here.
>>>
>>> if you have internet access, which you obviously do, you have voip
>>> providers.
>>
>> Nope. Not locally, that is, with local phone numbers.
>
> yes with local numbers.
Ah, yes? Please give me the link for such a service in Spain.
They must grant me the same phone number I have now, and they must
handle the dropping of the phone line with Movistar (ie, land line
portability to VoIp), but keep internet.
>
>> The phone companies obviously use VoIP, but they do it in a way that we
>> can not access it, and give use the traditional service instead, with
>> traditional tarification.
>
> use an independent voip provider.
>
> here's a list:
> <https://www.voip-catalog.com/voip_countries_spain_1.html>
> <http://www.voipproviderslist.com/country/voip-spain/voip-providers-spai
> n/>
Oh, I tried them time ago. Bankrupt.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 13:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <131120181322117213%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57488 |
In article <g50i81Flbq9U1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >>>> No VoIP providers here. > >>> > >>> if you have internet access, which you obviously do, you have voip > >>> providers. > >> > >> Nope. Not locally, that is, with local phone numbers. > > > > yes with local numbers. > > Ah, yes? Please give me the link for such a service in Spain. many voip providers offer numbers in spain, including voip.ms, callcentric and others and one need not actually live there to obtain such a number. > They must grant me the same phone number I have now, and they must > handle the dropping of the phone line with Movistar (ie, land line > portability to VoIp), but keep internet. that is dependent on porting rules, not voip. > >> The phone companies obviously use VoIP, but they do it in a way that we > >> can not access it, and give use the traditional service instead, with > >> traditional tarification. > > > > use an independent voip provider. > > > > here's a list: > > <https://www.voip-catalog.com/voip_countries_spain_1.html> > > <http://www.voipproviderslist.com/country/voip-spain/voip-providers-spai > > n/> > > Oh, I tried them time ago. Bankrupt. every single one? the second link has 11 *pages* of options. and that's not a complete list either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 18:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dX6XCxm1hx6bFw1H@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57491 |
In message <131120181322117213%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: >In article <g50i81Flbq9U1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R. ><robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> >>>> No VoIP providers here. >> >>> >> >>> if you have internet access, which you obviously do, you have voip >> >>> providers. >> >> >> >> Nope. Not locally, that is, with local phone numbers. >> > >> > yes with local numbers. >> >> Ah, yes? Please give me the link for such a service in Spain. > >many voip providers offer numbers in spain, including voip.ms, >callcentric and others and one need not actually live there to obtain >such a number. [] But will any of them let Carlos keep his _existing_ number, which he wants (though admittedly he didn't make that clear initially)? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf There's only so much you can do... with gravel. - Charlie Dimmock, RT 2016/7/9-15
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 13:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <131120181349215010%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57493 |
In article <dX6XCxm1hx6bFw1H@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> >>>> No VoIP providers here. > >> >>> > >> >>> if you have internet access, which you obviously do, you have voip > >> >>> providers. > >> >> > >> >> Nope. Not locally, that is, with local phone numbers. > >> > > >> > yes with local numbers. > >> > >> Ah, yes? Please give me the link for such a service in Spain. > > > >many voip providers offer numbers in spain, including voip.ms, > >callcentric and others and one need not actually live there to obtain > >such a number. > [] > But will any of them let Carlos keep his _existing_ number, which he > wants (though admittedly he didn't make that clear initially)? that's dependent on porting rules, not voip in particular. if for some reason it can't be ported, simply forward it to the new number. problem solved. callers won't know the difference. or change numbers, which people do all the time for various reasons. requiring the same number is bullshit and he knows it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <CnJQ+lp6Ly6bFwEj@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57497 |
In message <131120181349215010%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: >In article <dX6XCxm1hx6bFw1H@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) ><G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> >> >>>> No VoIP providers here. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> if you have internet access, which you obviously do, you have voip >> >> >>> providers. >> >> >> >> >> >> Nope. Not locally, that is, with local phone numbers. >> >> > >> >> > yes with local numbers. >> >> >> >> Ah, yes? Please give me the link for such a service in Spain. >> > >> >many voip providers offer numbers in spain, including voip.ms, >> >callcentric and others and one need not actually live there to obtain >> >such a number. >> [] >> But will any of them let Carlos keep his _existing_ number, which he >> wants (though admittedly he didn't make that clear initially)? > >that's dependent on porting rules, not voip in particular. Regardless of what rules, procedures, etc. you have to jump through, can you provide Carlos with a _practical_ provider he could use, and keep his number? If they won't implement the porting rules or whatever, it isn't viable. > >if for some reason it can't be ported, simply forward it to the new >number. problem solved. callers won't know the difference. Needs you to still have access to the old number. > >or change numbers, which people do all the time for various reasons. > >requiring the same number is bullshit and he knows it. A very unfeeling attitude. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-13 14:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <131120181424412228%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57499 |
In article <CnJQ+lp6Ly6bFwEj@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> But will any of them let Carlos keep his _existing_ number, which he > >> wants (though admittedly he didn't make that clear initially)? > > > >that's dependent on porting rules, not voip in particular. > > Regardless of what rules, procedures, etc. you have to jump through, can > you provide Carlos with a _practical_ provider he could use, and keep > his number? If they won't implement the porting rules or whatever, it > isn't viable. i did, and this isn't about him in particular. restrictions that might affect him do not affect everyone. > >if for some reason it can't be ported, simply forward it to the new > >number. problem solved. callers won't know the difference. > > Needs you to still have access to the old number. if he doesn't want to give up the number, he either needs to port it to a new provider or keep it with the old provider. > >or change numbers, which people do all the time for various reasons. > > > >requiring the same number is bullshit and he knows it. > > A very unfeeling attitude. not really. he's just playing games.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 09:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g52503F19jqU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57500 |
On 13/11/2018 20.24, nospam wrote:
> In article <CnJQ+lp6Ly6bFwEj@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
> <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> But will any of them let Carlos keep his _existing_ number, which he
>>>> wants (though admittedly he didn't make that clear initially)?
>>>
>>> that's dependent on porting rules, not voip in particular.
>>
>> Regardless of what rules, procedures, etc. you have to jump through, can
>> you provide Carlos with a _practical_ provider he could use, and keep
>> his number? If they won't implement the porting rules or whatever, it
>> isn't viable.
>
> i did, and this isn't about him in particular. restrictions that might
> affect him do not affect everyone.
>
>>> if for some reason it can't be ported, simply forward it to the new
>>> number. problem solved. callers won't know the difference.
>>
>> Needs you to still have access to the old number.
>
> if he doesn't want to give up the number, he either needs to port it to
> a new provider or keep it with the old provider.
>
>>> or change numbers, which people do all the time for various reasons.
>>>
>>> requiring the same number is bullshit and he knows it.
>>
>> A very unfeeling attitude.
>
> not really. he's just playing games.
>
I'm not playing games. It is a requirement. I write the requirements.
I'm not going to tell a thousand people that my number changed.
You say it is stupid because you know you can not provide the exact answer.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 09:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g524r0F19jqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57497 |
On 13/11/2018 19.49, nospam wrote:
> In article <dX6XCxm1hx6bFw1H@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
> <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> No VoIP providers here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if you have internet access, which you obviously do, you have voip
>>>>>>> providers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. Not locally, that is, with local phone numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>> yes with local numbers.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, yes? Please give me the link for such a service in Spain.
>>>
>>> many voip providers offer numbers in spain, including voip.ms,
>>> callcentric and others and one need not actually live there to obtain
>>> such a number.
>> []
>> But will any of them let Carlos keep his _existing_ number, which he
>> wants (though admittedly he didn't make that clear initially)?
>
> that's dependent on porting rules, not voip in particula
So?
>
> if for some reason it can't be ported, simply forward it to the new
> number. problem solved. callers won't know the difference.
Forwarding here requires keeping the POTs line and a monthly fee for the
forwarding service.
>
> or change numbers, which people do all the time for various reasons.
>
> requiring the same number is bullshit and he knows it.
I absolutely require keeping the same number and you know it is an
important requirement.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 09:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <141120180915032258%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57510 |
In article <g524r0F19jqU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > > > > requiring the same number is bullshit and he knows it. > > I absolutely require keeping the same number and you know it is an > important requirement. maybe for you, but not for others, and in your case, there are a few options available. the point is that voip service is available *anywhere* there is internet access, including where you are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 17:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <epE3tOOJtF7bFw$k@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57514 |
In message <141120180915032258%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: >In article <g524r0F19jqU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R. ><robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> > >> > requiring the same number is bullshit and he knows it. >> >> I absolutely require keeping the same number and you know it is an >> important requirement. (Fleet vehicle painting for example. May not be relevant for Carlos.) > >maybe for you, but not for others, and in your case, there are a few >options available. Such as? > >the point is that voip service is available *anywhere* there is >internet access, including where you are. OK, Carlos was _perhaps_ remiss in not mentioning in the first place that number retention was important to him. But can we let that drop now, and only discuss the "options available" that _do_ let him keep his number _and_ provide VoIP? Yes, I think _most_ of us do know that if you _aren't_ wanting to keep your number, VoIP is widely available. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Have the courage to be ordinary - people make themselves so desperately unhappy trying to be clever and totally original. (Robbie Coltrane, RT 8-14 Nov. 1997.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 12:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <141120181253375519%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57517 |
In article <epE3tOOJtF7bFw$k@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >maybe for you, but not for others, and in your case, there are a few > >options available. > > Such as? port it or forward it, as i said a few times now. or even keep both numbers. there's no limit to how many numbers someone can have.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 18:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <J91y46SM3G7bFwNc@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57519 |
In message <141120181253375519%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: >In article <epE3tOOJtF7bFw$k@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) ><G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> >maybe for you, but not for others, and in your case, there are a few >> >options available. >> >> Such as? > >port it or forward it, as i said a few times now. or even keep both >numbers. there's no limit to how many numbers someone can have. And, as has been pointed out, forwarding requires retention of the original number. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf resentment is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die - attributed to Carrie Fisher by Gareth McLean, in Radio Times 28 January-3 February 2012
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 14:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <141120181433355394%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57523 |
In article <J91y46SM3G7bFwNc@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> >maybe for you, but not for others, and in your case, there are a few > >> >options available. > >> > >> Such as? > > > >port it or forward it, as i said a few times now. or even keep both > >numbers. there's no limit to how many numbers someone can have. > > And, as has been pointed out, forwarding requires retention of the > original number. nobody said otherwise. obviously it requires keeping the original number. fortunately, that's very easy to do, and is actually *less* work than porting it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 19:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pshutg.i0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57517 |
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > In message <141120180915032258%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam > <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: > >In article <g524r0F19jqU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R. > ><robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > > > >> > requiring the same number is bullshit and he knows it. > >> > >> I absolutely require keeping the same number and you know it is an > >> important requirement. > > (Fleet vehicle painting for example. May not be relevant for Carlos.) > > > >maybe for you, but not for others, and in your case, there are a few > >options available. > > Such as? > > > >the point is that voip service is available *anywhere* there is > >internet access, including where you are. > > OK, Carlos was _perhaps_ remiss in not mentioning in the first place > that number retention was important to him. But can we let that drop > now, and only discuss the "options available" that _do_ let him keep his > number _and_ provide VoIP? Yes, I think _most_ of us do know that if you > _aren't_ wanting to keep your number, VoIP is widely available. John, you might as well stop beating, because the horse is well and truly dead! Carlos never wanted VoIP in the first place! It was our resident Mr, Dodge-and-divert, who suggested 123456789 that for appointment reminders from his doctor, they should call his landline instead of sending an SMS, because - according to nospam - SMS is easily hacked and unreliable. VoIP was never relevant, it was just that 123456789's landline *happens* to be VoIP. But nospam is a 'master' in taking an irrelevant point and then making the whole discussion about that irrelevant point, often implying/saying that *others* brought the point up. Meanwhile back in the real world: "As of 2018, SMS is the most broadly-adopted multi-factor authentication method for consumer-facing accounts." <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-factor_authentication>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 14:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <141120181433345292%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57524 |
In article <pshutg.i0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > "As of 2018, SMS is the most broadly-adopted multi-factor > authentication method for consumer-facing accounts." > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-factor_authentication> you're confusing popularity with security. sms authentication is indeed popular, but it is *not* secure. it's security theater. <https://www.wired.com/2016/06/hey-stop-using-texts-two-factor-authentic ation/> The last few months have demonstrated that SMS text messages are often the weakest link in two-step logins: Attacks on political activists in Iran, Russia, and even here in the US have shown that determined hackers can sometimes hijack the SMS messages meant to keep you safe. Whenever possible, it's worth taking a minute to switch to a better system, like an authentication smartphone app or a physical token that generates one-time codes. And for services like Twitter that only offer second factor protections that depend on SMS, it's time to wake up, smell the targeted attacks, and give users better options. "SMS is just not the best way to do this," says security researcher and forensics expert Jonathan Zdziarski. "It¹s depending on your mobile phone as a means of authentication [in a way] that can be socially engineered out of your control."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-14 15:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <psi85l$7gn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57525 |
On 11/14/2018 12:33 PM, nospam wrote: > Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: >> "As of 2018, SMS is the most broadly-adopted multi-factor >> authentication method for consumer-facing accounts." > you're confusing popularity with security. Perhaps not. 2FA by SMS is likely popular because it is EASILY used by the general population. Many customers would balk at a more complicated non-universal system. And it is considerably more secure than the insecurity questions we've been discussing. > it is *not* secure. it's security theater. Its security is apparently adequate, otherwise those in the know (banks, credit card companies, Amazon, Google, etc.) wouldn't be asking people to use it. > Attacks on political activists in Iran, Russia, and even here in the > US have shown that determined hackers can sometimes hijack the SMS > messages meant to keep you safe. If I were a James Bond type then I'd surely hide my Internet dealings better. I agree being targeted can be a problem. But me being one of the anonymous hundreds of millions of of users I'm not all that paranoid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-15 00:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <151120180004434170%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57528 |
In article <psi85l$7gn$1@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > >> "As of 2018, SMS is the most broadly-adopted multi-factor > >> authentication method for consumer-facing accounts." > > > you're confusing popularity with security. > > Perhaps not. 2FA by SMS is likely popular because it is EASILY used by > the general population. Many customers would balk at a more complicated > non-universal system. totp is only slightly more complex than sms. you get the code from an app rather than a text. it's *significantly* more secure, plus it works on laptops, desktops, smartwatches and other devices that *can't* get a text. > And it is considerably more secure than the > insecurity questions we've been discussing. not really. the chances someone will correctly guess made up answers is extremely low, especially if more than one question is asked. unfortunately, most people use real answers, which can be researched. most people don't bother with 2factor, the most popular pin codes are 1111 and 1234 and the most popular passwords are password and 123456. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_common_passwords> > > it is *not* secure. it's security theater. > > Its security is apparently adequate, otherwise those in the know > (banks, credit card companies, Amazon, Google, etc.) wouldn't be asking > people to use it. as i said, it's security theater. it looks like they're doing something and people *think* they're more secure, but they really aren't. > > Attacks on political activists in Iran, Russia, and even here in the > > US have shown that determined hackers can sometimes hijack the SMS > > messages meant to keep you safe. > > If I were a James Bond type then I'd surely hide my Internet dealings > better. I agree being targeted can be a problem. But me being one of the > anonymous hundreds of millions of of users I'm not all that paranoid. the chances may be low, but if you piss off the wrong person, they can find you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-15 00:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <psj71c$de0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57536 |
On 11/14/2018 10:04 PM, nospam wrote: > 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > totp is only slightly more complex than sms. you get the code from an > app rather than a text. I concede there are better systems. But IMO for most folks 2FA using SMS codes are REASONABLE security. As stated earlier I required only ONE code for my phone's banking app certification and that was generated over TWO YEARS AGO. What are the odds of its ONE-TIME interception? And even if the millions to one odds were broken and a perp did intercept my ONE-TIME code, he would ALSO NEED to know the APPS NAME, my USER NAME, and my PASSWORD to do anything with it. IMO that's reasonable security. > plus it works on laptops, desktops, smartwatches and other devices > that *can't* get a text. Getting an SMS code for devices that can't receive a text isn't a problem for me since my phone's always nearby. Is that really a problem for you? > most people don't bother with 2factor, If so they wouldn't bother with non-SMS 2FA security either. > the most popular pin codes are 1111 and 1234 and the most popular > passwords are password and 123456. 2FA SMS codes would be a GOOD thing for poor password people. > the chances may be low, but if you piss off the wrong person, they > can find you. True. And do much worse than just compromise your accounts. So it's wise not to piss people off, even on anonymous Usenet. Wouldn't you agree... ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-15 12:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <151120181209078306%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57542 |
In article <psj71c$de0$2@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > > plus it works on laptops, desktops, smartwatches and other devices > > that *can't* get a text. > > Getting an SMS code for devices that can't receive a text isn't a > problem for me since my phone's always nearby. Is that really a problem > for you? it's more convenient to click and instantly obtain a code via an app running in the background on a laptop/desktop versus waiting for a text message to a phone, which may not be easily accessible, and then typing it into the web site. some apps can even autofill the code on the website, or copy it to the clipboard for manual pasting, if desired.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-15 12:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pskirk$jil$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57544 |
On 11/15/2018 10:09 AM, nospam wrote: > 123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: >> Getting an SMS code for devices that can't receive a text isn't a >> problem for me since my phone's always nearby. Is that really a >> problem for you? > it's more convenient to click and instantly obtain a code via an app > running in the background on a laptop/desktop versus waiting for a > text message to a phone, Convenience? Mine is quite convenient. *NO APP* to install and configure. And only *ONE* 2FA SMS text to certify the browser and I'm DONE and ready to go... I can't argue that 2FA SMS is more secure than your system but CONVENIENCE?? Not so much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web