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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #146076 > unrolled thread

More about RCS.

Started bymicky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
First post2025-01-02 22:55 -0500
Last post2025-01-11 12:56 +0100
Articles 20 on this page of 75 — 10 participants

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

Contents

  More about RCS. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-01-02 22:55 -0500
    Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-03 06:58 +0100
      Re: More about RCS. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-01-03 08:02 -0500
        Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-03 15:25 +0100
          Re: More about RCS. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-01-03 09:36 -0500
            Re: More about RCS. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 15:38 +0000
              Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-03 22:27 +0100
                Re: More about RCS. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 18:41 +0000
            Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-03 18:26 +0100
        Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-03 23:22 +0100
          Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-04 02:55 +0100
            Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-04 09:02 +0100
              Re: More about RCS. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-04 09:59 +0000
              Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-04 13:00 +0100
                Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-04 13:49 +0100
                  Re: More about RCS. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-01-04 20:52 -0500
            Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-05 12:57 +0100
              Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 15:18 +0100
              Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-05 17:26 +0100
                Re: More about RCS. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 16:31 +0000
              Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-05 17:31 +0100
                Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-05 18:40 +0100
                Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 21:59 +0100
                  Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-05 22:19 +0100
                    Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 22:30 +0100
                      Re: More about RCS. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-06 16:36 +0000
              Re: More about RCS. Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-07 13:42 +0000
                Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-07 15:05 +0100
    Re: More about RCS. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2025-01-03 13:46 +0000
      Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-03 23:25 +0100
        Re: More about RCS. Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2025-01-04 07:52 +0000
          Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-04 13:03 +0100
            Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-04 13:51 +0100
              Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-05 13:01 +0100
                Re: More about RCS. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 13:14 +0000
                Re: More about RCS. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2025-01-07 13:38 +0000
                  Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-08 10:28 +0100
                  Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-08 13:32 +0100
                    Re: More about RCS. Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2025-01-08 13:53 +0000
                    Re: More about RCS. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-08 15:40 +0000
                      Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-08 17:07 +0100
                        Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-08 21:06 +0100
                          Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-10 10:23 +0100
                            Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-10 18:25 +0100
                        Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-10 18:24 +0100
                      Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-08 21:10 +0100
                  Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-10 18:21 +0100
          Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-05 13:00 +0100
        Re: More about RCS. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-01-04 20:45 -0500
          Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 04:05 +0100
            Re: More about RCS. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-01-05 10:46 -0500
              Re: More about RCS. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 16:04 +0000
              Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 21:45 +0100
          Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-05 13:03 +0100
            Re: More about RCS. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-01 08:19 -0400
    Re: More about RCS. "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-01-04 11:00 +0100
      Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-04 12:21 +0100
        Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-05 13:04 +0100
          Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 15:20 +0100
            Re: More about RCS. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 14:42 +0000
              Re: More about RCS. "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-01-06 20:17 +0100
            Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-05 17:34 +0100
              Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-05 18:46 +0100
                Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 21:48 +0100
                  Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-05 22:25 +0100
                    Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-10 18:28 +0100
                      Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-10 20:32 +0100
                        Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-11 12:53 +0100
                          Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-11 15:32 +0100
                            Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-12 16:37 +0100
                      Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-10 22:19 +0100
                        Re: More about RCS. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-10 22:41 +0100
                          Re: More about RCS. Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-11 07:40 +0100
                            Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-11 12:58 +0100
                        Re: More about RCS. Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-11 12:56 +0100

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#146267

FromJörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
Date2025-01-05 17:31 +0100
Message-ID<vlec4v$28a1e$1@solani.org>
In reply to#146247
On 05.01.25 12:57, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Carlos E.R., 2025-01-04 02:55:
> 
>> On 2025-01-03 23:22, Arno Welzel wrote:
> [...
>>> Messengers on the other hand are mostly proprietary non-federated
>>> services like WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Threema etc. which use servers
>>> of the respective provider (like Meta in the case of WhatsApp) and they
>>> send messages using these servers. You also can not send message from
>>> WhatsApp to Signal or Threema. If you have friends using Threema you
>>> either also need a Threema account or you have to convince your friends
>>> to join the messenger service you use yourself.
>>
>> Whereas SMS is guaranteed to exist on any (mobile) phone.
> 
> Yes - but it is not guaranteed any longer to be delivered. At least in
> Germany I experienced it more than once that SMS from one provider to
> another did not get delivered to the recipient. Since providers don't
> earn extra money for SMS any longer, they tend not to care about
> interoperability any longer.

SMS has never been more important as delivery channel for security
related distribution channels and for businesses. Simply because it is
standardised like email.

For private communication it almost completely lost its importance and
was replaced with Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal,
Threema and iMessage. But certainly not RCS.


-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

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

#146276

FromArno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de>
Date2025-01-05 18:40 +0100
Message-ID<ltvuh8F52ggU5@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#146267
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-05 17:31:

> On 05.01.25 12:57, Arno Welzel wrote:
[...]
>> Yes - but it is not guaranteed any longer to be delivered. At least in
>> Germany I experienced it more than once that SMS from one provider to
>> another did not get delivered to the recipient. Since providers don't
>> earn extra money for SMS any longer, they tend not to care about
>> interoperability any longer.
> 
> SMS has never been more important as delivery channel for security
> related distribution channels and for businesses. Simply because it is
> standardised like email.

Yes - but this is a different use case.

To get SMS delivered in commercial applications (for example for
confirmation codes or transaction numbers etc.) you do not send a
message from one phone to another, but instead you have a messaging
provider like Brevo who gets messages delivered to the mobile phone
providers directly. This avoids interoperability issues. And yes, this
is not for free of course.

-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

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

#146293

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2025-01-05 21:59 +0100
Message-ID<2e8r4lx6om.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#146267
On 2025-01-05 17:31, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 05.01.25 12:57, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Carlos E.R., 2025-01-04 02:55:
>>
>>> On 2025-01-03 23:22, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> [...
>>>> Messengers on the other hand are mostly proprietary non-federated
>>>> services like WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Threema etc. which use servers
>>>> of the respective provider (like Meta in the case of WhatsApp) and they
>>>> send messages using these servers. You also can not send message from
>>>> WhatsApp to Signal or Threema. If you have friends using Threema you
>>>> either also need a Threema account or you have to convince your friends
>>>> to join the messenger service you use yourself.
>>>
>>> Whereas SMS is guaranteed to exist on any (mobile) phone.
>>
>> Yes - but it is not guaranteed any longer to be delivered. At least in
>> Germany I experienced it more than once that SMS from one provider to
>> another did not get delivered to the recipient. Since providers don't
>> earn extra money for SMS any longer, they tend not to care about
>> interoperability any longer.
> 
> SMS has never been more important as delivery channel for security
> related distribution channels and for businesses. Simply because it is
> standardised like email.
> 
> For private communication it almost completely lost its importance and
> was replaced with Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal,
> Threema and iMessage. But certainly not RCS.

That's not so in NA. You keep forgetting.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#146295

FromJörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
Date2025-01-05 22:19 +0100
Message-ID<vlet0o$28itl$1@solani.org>
In reply to#146293
On 05.01.25 21:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-01-05 17:31, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> For private communication it almost completely lost its importance and
>> was replaced with Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal,
>> Threema and iMessage. But certainly not RCS.
> 
> That's not so in NA. You keep forgetting.

It is so in NA. People below 60 do not use SMS for private communication
anymore and adolescents hardly know what an SMS is. My contacts in the
US of A use all messengers. SMS is out for more than a decade because of
the very limited functionality. Cost is no factor in this equation.


-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

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

#146297

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2025-01-05 22:30 +0100
Message-ID<u8ar4lxtht.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#146295
On 2025-01-05 22:19, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 05.01.25 21:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-01-05 17:31, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> For private communication it almost completely lost its importance and
>>> was replaced with Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal,
>>> Threema and iMessage. But certainly not RCS.
>>
>> That's not so in NA. You keep forgetting.
> 
> It is so in NA. People below 60 do not use SMS for private communication
> anymore and adolescents hardly know what an SMS is. My contacts in the
> US of A use all messengers. SMS is out for more than a decade because of
> the very limited functionality. Cost is no factor in this equation.

Sigh.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#146334

FromFrank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
Date2025-01-06 16:36 +0000
Message-ID<vlh4b0.3j0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
In reply to#146297
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2025-01-05 22:19, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> > On 05.01.25 21:59, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> >> On 2025-01-05 17:31, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> >>> For private communication it almost completely lost its importance and
> >>> was replaced with Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal,
> >>> Threema and iMessage. But certainly not RCS.
> >>
> >> That's not so in NA. You keep forgetting.
> > 
> > It is so in NA. People below 60 do not use SMS for private communication
> > anymore and adolescents hardly know what an SMS is. My contacts in the
> > US of A use all messengers. SMS is out for more than a decade because of
> > the very limited functionality. Cost is no factor in this equation.
> 
> Sigh.

  Indeed. He clearly would refuse to use SMS, so *his* contacts in the
US have no other choice than to use IM apps. That says absolutely
nothing about the 340 or so million other people.

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

#146339

FromChris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date2025-01-07 13:42 +0000
Message-ID<vljb0r$27nae$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#146247
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> Carlos E.R., 2025-01-04 02:55:
> 
>> On 2025-01-03 23:22, Arno Welzel wrote:
> [...
>>> Messengers on the other hand are mostly proprietary non-federated
>>> services like WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Threema etc. which use servers
>>> of the respective provider (like Meta in the case of WhatsApp) and they
>>> send messages using these servers. You also can not send message from
>>> WhatsApp to Signal or Threema. If you have friends using Threema you
>>> either also need a Threema account or you have to convince your friends
>>> to join the messenger service you use yourself.
>> 
>> Whereas SMS is guaranteed to exist on any (mobile) phone.
> 
> Yes - but it is not guaranteed any longer to be delivered. 

It never was. It was developed as a neat trick to use up spare capacity in
the network protocols. 

If there's high demand an SMS may not get delivered or take a long time to
be received. 

> At least in
> Germany I experienced it more than once that SMS from one provider to
> another did not get delivered to the recipient. Since providers don't
> earn extra money for SMS any longer, they tend not to care about
> interoperability any longer.

Providers haven't made money from SMS for a long time. It's been bundled as
"unlimited" in pretty much all types of contracts.

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

#146340

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2025-01-07 15:05 +0100
Message-ID<euov4lxrhf.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#146339
On 2025-01-07 14:42, Chris wrote:

...

>> At least in
>> Germany I experienced it more than once that SMS from one provider to
>> another did not get delivered to the recipient. Since providers don't
>> earn extra money for SMS any longer, they tend not to care about
>> interoperability any longer.
> Providers haven't made money from SMS for a long time. It's been bundled as
> "unlimited" in pretty much all types of contracts.

Sending an international SMS still costs me 60 cents.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#146099

FromJoe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh>
Date2025-01-03 13:46 +0000
Message-ID<vl8pna$3tich$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#146076
On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 22:55:06 -0500, micky wrote:
> RCS has this cool service.  When you send a text, it shows a little
> circle with a check mark in it. When the other party receives the text,
> it shows also an overlapping little circle with a check mark. When the
> other party READS the text I've sent, it shows both circles in blue.
> 
> HOw cool is that. 
> 

If the recipient doesn't have RCS, there will be no way to know if
they read or not and the circles wouldn't turn blue either way.

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

#146138

FromArno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de>
Date2025-01-03 23:25 +0100
Message-ID<ltr6erFcivtU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#146099
Joe Beanfish, 2025-01-03 14:46:

> On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 22:55:06 -0500, micky wrote:
>> RCS has this cool service.  When you send a text, it shows a little
>> circle with a check mark in it. When the other party receives the text,
>> it shows also an overlapping little circle with a check mark. When the
>> other party READS the text I've sent, it shows both circles in blue.
>>
>> HOw cool is that. 
>>
> 
> If the recipient doesn't have RCS, there will be no way to know if
> they read or not and the circles wouldn't turn blue either way.

Yes, but you will see if someone has RCS before you send the message
since using the phone number of the recipient the device can check, if
the recipient is connected to the RCS network services.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

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

#146160

FromDave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com>
Date2025-01-04 07:52 +0000
Message-ID<vlapb5$c9jm$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#146138
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> Wrote in message:

> Joe Beanfish, 2025-01-03 14:46:
> 
>> On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 22:55:06 -0500, micky wrote:
>>> RCS has this cool service.  When you send a text, it shows a little
>>> circle with a check mark in it. When the other party receives the text,
>>> it shows also an overlapping little circle with a check mark. When the
>>> other party READS the text I've sent, it shows both circles in blue.
>>>
>>> HOw cool is that. 
>>>
>> 
>> If the recipient doesn't have RCS, there will be no way to know if
>> they read or not and the circles wouldn't turn blue either way.
> 
> Yes, but you will see if someone has RCS before you send the message
> since using the phone number of the recipient the device can check, if
> the recipient is connected to the RCS network services.
> 
Might the recipient have seen the message in a notification on the
 home screen, but not opened the messages app to read it? I don't
 know - I don't use RCS.

I know one of my apps - I forget which, or even which phone -
 pings to remind me I have an unread message when I've read it as
 a notification - and it just says 'OK', say.
-- 
Remove numerics from my email address.

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

#146178

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2025-01-04 13:03 +0100
Message-ID<2mkn4lxahs.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#146160
On 2025-01-04 08:52, Dave Royal wrote:
> Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> Wrote in message:
> 
>> Joe Beanfish, 2025-01-03 14:46:
>>
>>> On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 22:55:06 -0500, micky wrote:
>>>> RCS has this cool service.  When you send a text, it shows a little
>>>> circle with a check mark in it. When the other party receives the text,
>>>> it shows also an overlapping little circle with a check mark. When the
>>>> other party READS the text I've sent, it shows both circles in blue.
>>>>
>>>> HOw cool is that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If the recipient doesn't have RCS, there will be no way to know if
>>> they read or not and the circles wouldn't turn blue either way.
>>
>> Yes, but you will see if someone has RCS before you send the message
>> since using the phone number of the recipient the device can check, if
>> the recipient is connected to the RCS network services.
>>
> Might the recipient have seen the message in a notification on the
>   home screen, but not opened the messages app to read it?

Certainly.

> I don't
>   know - I don't use RCS.

Next time you replace your phone, RCS should be enabled by default :-)


> I know one of my apps - I forget which, or even which phone -
>   pings to remind me I have an unread message when I've read it as
>   a notification - and it just says 'OK', say.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#146183

FromJörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
Date2025-01-04 13:51 +0100
Message-ID<vlbasn$26ng6$2@solani.org>
In reply to#146178
On 04.01.25 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-01-04 08:52, Dave Royal wrote:
>> I don't
>>   know - I don't use RCS.
> 
> Next time you replace your phone, RCS should be enabled by default :-)

Good to know that we should deactivate Google's wet dream immediately. ;-)


-- 
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

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

#146249

FromArno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de>
Date2025-01-05 13:01 +0100
Message-ID<ltvakpF1tepU9@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#146183
Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-04 13:51:

> On 04.01.25 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-01-04 08:52, Dave Royal wrote:
>>> I don't
>>>   know - I don't use RCS.
>>
>> Next time you replace your phone, RCS should be enabled by default :-)
> 
> Good to know that we should deactivate Google's wet dream immediately. ;-)

RCS is a standard protocol and not "Google's wet dream".


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

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

#146254

FromFrank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
Date2025-01-05 13:14 +0000
Message-ID<vle43r.k20.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
In reply to#146249
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-04 13:51:
> 
> > On 04.01.25 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> >> On 2025-01-04 08:52, Dave Royal wrote:
> >>> I don't
> >>>   know - I don't use RCS.
> >>
> >> Next time you replace your phone, RCS should be enabled by default :-)
> > 
> > Good to know that we should deactivate Google's wet dream immediately. ;-)
> 
> RCS is a standard protocol and not "Google's wet dream".

  Maybe not, but it's clearly Jörg's nightmare. :-)

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

#146338

FromJoe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh>
Date2025-01-07 13:38 +0000
Message-ID<vljao3$2777m$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#146249
On Sun, 05 Jan 2025 13:01:29 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:

> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-04 13:51:
> 
>> On 04.01.25 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-04 08:52, Dave Royal wrote:
>>>> I don't
>>>>   know - I don't use RCS.
>>>
>>> Next time you replace your phone, RCS should be enabled by default :-)
>> 
>> Good to know that we should deactivate Google's wet dream immediately. ;-)
> 
> RCS is a standard protocol and not "Google's wet dream".

Whose servers do RCS messages pass thru?

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

#146341

FromJörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
Date2025-01-08 10:28 +0100
Message-ID<vllgga$2brqe$1@solani.org>
In reply to#146338
On 07.01.25 14:38, Joe Beanfish wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jan 2025 13:01:29 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
> 
>> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-04 13:51:
>>
>>> On 04.01.25 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2025-01-04 08:52, Dave Royal wrote:
>>>>> I don't
>>>>>   know - I don't use RCS.
>>>>
>>>> Next time you replace your phone, RCS should be enabled by default :-)
>>>
>>> Good to know that we should deactivate Google's wet dream immediately. ;-)
>>
>> RCS is a standard protocol and not "Google's wet dream".
> 
> Whose servers do RCS messages pass thru?

Code named "Wet Dream"?
*SCNR* ;-)

-- 
"De gustibus non est disputandum."

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

#146342

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2025-01-08 13:32 +0100
Message-ID<gs725lxllh.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#146338
On 2025-01-07 14:38, Joe Beanfish wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jan 2025 13:01:29 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
> 
>> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-04 13:51:
>>
>>> On 04.01.25 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2025-01-04 08:52, Dave Royal wrote:
>>>>> I don't
>>>>>    know - I don't use RCS.
>>>>
>>>> Next time you replace your phone, RCS should be enabled by default :-)
>>>
>>> Good to know that we should deactivate Google's wet dream immediately. ;-)
>>
>> RCS is a standard protocol and not "Google's wet dream".
> 
> Whose servers do RCS messages pass thru?

It is quite difficult to know in each case, there is no trace 
information as there is with email.

You can read here:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services>

Basically, it depends on whether your provider supports it directly, or 
not. If not, then it is via Google servers. Look at the "Interconnection 
and hubs" section in the above link.

There is also a large table of providers ("Commercial deployments").

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#146343

FromJoe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh>
Date2025-01-08 13:53 +0000
Message-ID<vlm008$2po8r$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#146342
On Wed, 08 Jan 2025 13:32:48 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2025-01-07 14:38, Joe Beanfish wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Jan 2025 13:01:29 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> 
>>> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-04 13:51:
>>>
>>>> On 04.01.25 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-01-04 08:52, Dave Royal wrote:
>>>>>> I don't
>>>>>>    know - I don't use RCS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Next time you replace your phone, RCS should be enabled by default :-)
>>>>
>>>> Good to know that we should deactivate Google's wet dream immediately. ;-)
>>>
>>> RCS is a standard protocol and not "Google's wet dream".
>> 
>> Whose servers do RCS messages pass thru?
> 
> It is quite difficult to know in each case, there is no trace 
> information as there is with email.
> 
> You can read here:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services>
> 
> Basically, it depends on whether your provider supports it directly, or 
> not. If not, then it is via Google servers. Look at the "Interconnection 
> and hubs" section in the above link.
> 
> There is also a large table of providers ("Commercial deployments").

Under Adoption it largely answers the question with
"In 2023, T-Mobile and AT&T agreed to use Google Jibe to implement RCS
services, and in 2024 Verizon agreed to use Google Jibe."
So, by and large, google servers.

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

#146344

FromAndy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
Date2025-01-08 15:40 +0000
Message-ID<lu7kjaFdra0U2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#146342
Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Joe Beanfish wrote:
>>> Arno Welzel wrote:
>>
>>> Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good to know that we should deactivate Google's wet dream 
>>>> immediately. ;-)
>>>
>>> RCS is a standard protocol and not "Google's wet dream".
>>
>> Whose servers do RCS messages pass thru?
> 
> It is quite difficult to know in each case, there is no trace 
> information as there is with email.

A couple of years ago my mobile provider ran their own RCS server, since 
then, they've (presumably like most others) migrated to using the 
Jibe/Google servers.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web