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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #155204 > unrolled thread

I got my first advert message via RCS

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

Contents

  I got my first advert message via RCS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-22 22:47 +0200
    Re: I got my first advert message via RCS Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-23 05:28 +0200
      Re: I got my first advert message via RCS Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-23 10:59 +0200
      Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 14:49 +0200
    Re: I got my first advert message via RCS VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2026-08-23 05:07 -0500
      Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 14:51 +0200
        Re: I got my first advert message via RCS Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-23 18:18 +0200
    Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-23 19:12 +0200
      Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 22:20 +0200
        Re: I got my first advert message via RCS Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-24 07:51 +0200
          Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:56 +0200
          Re: I got my first advert message via RCS Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 12:17 +0100
            Re: I got my first advert message via RCS Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-24 16:57 +0200
              Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 21:38 +0200
              Re: I got my first advert message via RCS David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2026-08-24 20:37 +0100
                Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 22:30 +0200
                  Re: I got my first advert message via RCS Ch1ffr3punk <ch1ffr3punk@gmail.com> - 2026-08-24 20:46 +0000
                    Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 22:57 +0200
                      Re: I got my first advert message via RCS Ch1ffr3punk <ch1ffr3punk@gmail.com> - 2026-08-24 21:14 +0000
        Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-24 19:13 +0200
          Re: I got my first advert message via RCS VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2026-08-24 12:54 -0500
            Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 21:50 +0200
              Re: I got my first advert message via RCS VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2026-08-24 17:54 -0500
                Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:05 +0200
                  Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 22:03 +0200
          Re: I got my first advert message via RCS Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 19:11 +0100
            Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-24 20:39 +0200
              Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 21:51 +0200
                Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:11 +0200
                  Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 22:05 +0200
                    Re: I got my first advert message via RCS Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 00:16 +0100
                    Re: I got my first advert message via RCS VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2026-08-25 21:34 -0500
              Re: I got my first advert message via RCS VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2026-08-24 18:01 -0500
                Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 01:53 +0200
                  Re: I got my first advert message via RCS Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 09:02 +0100
                    Re: I got my first advert message via RCS Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-25 10:35 +0200
                    Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 14:30 +0200
                      Re: I got my first advert message via RCS Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-25 15:22 +0200
                Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:23 +0200
          Re: I got my first advert message via RCS Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2026-08-25 07:41 +0200
            Re: I got my first advert message via RCS "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:14 +0200

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

#155256

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>> s|b wrote:
>>
>>> I would expect there is some way to unsubscribe?
> 
>> First, I do not want to.
> 
> You like spam? (-:

All Carlos said, so far, is the message came from his ISP.  Could be
about service changes, billing, untoward behavior, or other service
related content.  He didn't say what was the content.  Plus, it isn't
spam if you have a relationship with the sender.  Not all unwanted
messages are spam.  Carlos wants his ISP's messages ... so far.

>> I possibly accepted or even signed a paper accepting them, and
>> finding the address to unsubscribe is not easy. You can register in
>> the Robinson List, which might work, or may not, if they understand
>> that you signed for them.
> 
> I think it is EU law that a link to unsubscribe must be provided and
> unsubscribing must be made easy.

Provided it isn't a spammer pretending to be is ISP that wants you to
verify your e-mail address is both valid and monitored.  Although Carlos
said it was from his ISP, he'd have to check the headers to be sure.

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

#155266

On 2026-08-24 19:54, VanguardLH wrote:
> s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>>> s|b wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would expect there is some way to unsubscribe?
>>
>>> First, I do not want to.
>>
>> You like spam? (-:
> 
> All Carlos said, so far, is the message came from his ISP.  Could be
> about service changes, billing, untoward behavior, or other service
> related content.  He didn't say what was the content.  Plus, it isn't
> spam if you have a relationship with the sender.  Not all unwanted
> messages are spam.  Carlos wants his ISP's messages ... so far.

Correct.

The message is publicity, it is well made, it is not a scam, it is not 
daily. It doesn't harm me. Not even a nuisance.

It is trivial to ignore messages.

What I posted was simply technical, about the curiosity of a company 
using RCS messages instead of MMS or SMS. Others will follow.


> 
>>> I possibly accepted or even signed a paper accepting them, and
>>> finding the address to unsubscribe is not easy. You can register in
>>> the Robinson List, which might work, or may not, if they understand
>>> that you signed for them.
>>
>> I think it is EU law that a link to unsubscribe must be provided and
>> unsubscribing must be made easy.

I don't see unsubscribe info in most SMS messages, they are too short 
for that.

For instance, on an SMS from a big department store, it says "baja XXXX" 
(leave, phone number).

> 
> Provided it isn't a spammer pretending to be is ISP that wants you to
> verify your e-mail address is both valid and monitored.  Although Carlos
> said it was from his ISP, he'd have to check the headers to be sure.

No, the message is legit.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#155278

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I think it is EU law that a link to unsubscribe must be provided and
>> unsubscribing must be made easy.
> 
> I don't see unsubscribe info in most SMS messages, they are too short 
> for that.

sb was probably thinking about e-mail instead of messaging.

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

#155315

On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 17:54:26 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > I don't see unsubscribe info in most SMS messages, they are too short 
> > for that.

I don't know if it's a EU rule, but in Belgium one can send STOP to
cancel SMS subscriptions. This was done in a time where we had dumb
phones and if you weren't carefully you'd get a (paid) subscription
where you'd receive monthly ringtones by SMS (MMS, I guess).
 
> sb was probably thinking about e-mail instead of messaging.

Indeed.

-- 
s|b

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

#155319

On 2026-08-25 21:05, s|b wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 17:54:26 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
> 
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see unsubscribe info in most SMS messages, they are too short
>>> for that.
> 
> I don't know if it's a EU rule, but in Belgium one can send STOP to
> cancel SMS subscriptions. This was done in a time where we had dumb
> phones and if you weren't carefully you'd get a (paid) subscription
> where you'd receive monthly ringtones by SMS (MMS, I guess).
>   
>> sb was probably thinking about e-mail instead of messaging.
> 
> Indeed.
> 

In quite a number of SMS streams, we can not reply to the posts. There 
is no box to write anything.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#155258

On 2026-08-24, s|b wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Aug 2026 22:20:05 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> On 2026-08-23 19:12, s|b wrote:
>>
>> > I would expect there is some way to unsubscribe?
>
>> First, I do not want to.
>
> You like spam? (-:
>  
>> I possibly accepted or even signed a paper accepting them, and finding 
>> the address to unsubscribe is not easy. You can register in the Robinson 
>> List, which might work, or may not, if they understand that you signed 
>> for them.
>
> I think it is EU law that a link to unsubscribe must be provided and

That sounds stupid given that the chief advice has been not to follow
such links?

> unsubscribing must be made easy. 

-- 
Nuno Silva

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

#155259

On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 19:11:01 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:

> On 2026-08-24, s|b wrote:
>
> > I think it is EU law that a link to unsubscribe must be provided and
 
> That sounds stupid given that the chief advice has been not to follow
> such links?

Only if it's phishing. When it's a legit mail it's actually an easy way
to unsubscribe, usually with 1 or 2 mouseclicks.

-- 
s|b

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

#155265

On 2026-08-24 20:39, s|b wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 19:11:01 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:
> 
>> On 2026-08-24, s|b wrote:
>>
>>> I think it is EU law that a link to unsubscribe must be provided and
>   
>> That sounds stupid given that the chief advice has been not to follow
>> such links?
> 
> Only if it's phishing. When it's a legit mail it's actually an easy way
> to unsubscribe, usually with 1 or 2 mouseclicks.
> 

I never click. In email, I simply create a filter to move to spam folder.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#155316

On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 21:51:40 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2026-08-24 20:39, s|b wrote:
>
> > Only if it's phishing. When it's a legit mail it's actually an easy way
> > to unsubscribe, usually with 1 or 2 mouseclicks.

> I never click. In email, I simply create a filter to move to spam folder.

So you just keep receiving those mails, even if there is a simple way to
unsubscribe from their mailing list?

An example: almost every company you order something from online will
ask you for a mailaddress and will subscribe you to their mailing list
automatically (opt-out). First thing I do when they mail me to ask 'if
I'm happy with their order and please rate us' is to unsubscribe. And
the last thing I'll hear from them.

-- 
s|b

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

#155320

On 2026-08-25 21:11, s|b wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 21:51:40 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>> On 2026-08-24 20:39, s|b wrote:
>>
>>> Only if it's phishing. When it's a legit mail it's actually an easy way
>>> to unsubscribe, usually with 1 or 2 mouseclicks.
> 
>> I never click. In email, I simply create a filter to move to spam folder.
> 
> So you just keep receiving those mails, even if there is a simple way to
> unsubscribe from their mailing list?

Yes. I don't trust the unsubscribe links. If I click, I confirm to them 
that I am a real person and that the address is correct.

> 
> An example: almost every company you order something from online will
> ask you for a mailaddress and will subscribe you to their mailing list
> automatically (opt-out). First thing I do when they mail me to ask 'if
> I'm happy with their order and please rate us' is to unsubscribe. And
> the last thing I'll hear from them.
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#155321

On 2026-08-25, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2026-08-25 21:11, s|b wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 21:51:40 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-08-24 20:39, s|b wrote:
>>>
>>>> Only if it's phishing. When it's a legit mail it's actually an easy way
>>>> to unsubscribe, usually with 1 or 2 mouseclicks.
>>
>>> I never click. In email, I simply create a filter to move to spam folder.
>>
>> So you just keep receiving those mails, even if there is a simple way to
>> unsubscribe from their mailing list?
>
> Yes. I don't trust the unsubscribe links. If I click, I confirm to
> them that I am a real person and that the address is correct.

The only thing I'd perhaps do is to tick some checkbox somewhere in
their user profile interface where available, and that'll depend on the
case; if the mailbox it was sent to is in some remote service with
adaptive spam filtering, I'll still mark it as SPAM, for it *is* SPAM.

>> An example: almost every company you order something from online will
>> ask you for a mailaddress and will subscribe you to their mailing list
>> automatically (opt-out). First thing I do when they mail me to ask 'if
>> I'm happy with their order and please rate us' is to unsubscribe. And
>> the last thing I'll hear from them.
>>

-- 
Nuno Silva

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

#155325

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> Yes. I don't trust the unsubscribe links. If I click, I confirm to them 
> that I am a real person and that the address is correct.

I found using e-mail aliases works best to thwart unwanted and spam
e-mails.  I used to use Spamgourmet, but its owner died, and his son has
botched the job along with updates.  I don't think Spamgourmet is
operational anymore.  I moved to AnonAddy (https://addy.io/).  You can
assign an alias e-mail to every recipient.  I use a username (left token
in e-mail address) that is unique to the website, and add a datestamp
string to know when I gave it to them, and to let me create another
later should I kill an earlier alias I gave them.  With aliases, they
never know your true e-mail address. You can pause or kill an alias
anytime.

There are forwarding services that do the same, except if you reply to
an aliased e-mail then you could divulge your true e-mail address in the
headers, or in a signature.  Forwarding services do nothing about
replies which are sent direct from your client to their server.
Aliasing also hides your true e-mail address.  A reply goes back to the
aliasing service which strips out all the headers, so it looks like your
reply originated from the aliasing service instead of from your true
e-mail provider.  In addition, if you add a signature, the aliasing
service will [try to] remove it.  Your reply is routed back through the
aliasing service, not sent through your true e-mail provider.  However,
while reply masking was included with Spamgourmet, it is a paid feature
with AnonAddy.  When I had it, cost was $12/year to include 50 masked
replies per month which is huge compared to how many aliases I was
doling out.

You can manage your aliasing account either via web, or use their web
browser extension.  I don't care who asks for my e-mail address.
Doctor, pharmacy, bank, retailer, whoever: they all first get an alias.
I then wait 6 months to see if any spam came through that alias.
Becuase I assigned a unique left token with a datestamp to every alias,
I know exactly who betrayed my trust, and kill that alias.  I'll never
get e-mails through that alias from them, or from whomever they divulged
that alias.

The only person that protects your e-mail address is you.  Don't believe
any claim saying they will protect your e-mail address, and never sell
it off.  Put them through a trial period by using an alias.  Then you
can decide later if they honored your privacy, or betrayed it.  If you
don't get spam through an alias after several months, you can decided
whether to continue having them use the alias, or update your account
with them to divulge your true e-mail address.

Also note that e-mails are often not sent out by a company, but by
someone the contract for those services.  You get an e-mail supposedly
from so-and-so, but the headers show it was sent from someone else, like
at a different domain.  The opt-out request goes to the contractor, not
back to the company that hired them.  The company assumes the contractor
will comply with privacy rules, but they won't ever know until they
discover a violation, and the recipients requesting opt-outs are
isolated from the company.

As for fining spammers that don't honor opt-opts, or those that do not
honor the Do Not Call list, yes, you can register the violation, but
that will not issue an immediate fine against the offender.  A certain
level of complaints must be registered to accrue to a total fine that
the gov't will then bother to open a lawsuit to fine the offender.  In
the USA, it takes a minimum, and often a lot more, in aggregate fines to
accrue to $25,000 before the feds take action.  The fine per incident
has gone up, but so has the aggregate fine before the feds take action.
"The FTC has sued hundreds of companies and people behind unwanted
calls. As a result, telemarketers who made illegal calls have paid more
than $290 million dollars in judgments. And the FTC has stopped people
responsible for billions of robocalls."
(https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/national-do-not-call-registry-faqs).
Robodialers don't take instructions, they are most targeted.  If you get
a real person spam calling you, they are not in violation if they comply
with your request and notification you are on the DNT list.  Getting one
call isn't a violation.  It's a mistake.  If they continue to call you
then it is a violation.  Most times when it was a real person, they bow
out gracefully when notified I'm on the DNT list.  However, the DNT has
exemptions, like political, non-profits, or charities.  The feds can't
do anything if the spammer is located offshore; i.e., they're calling
you from a country that doesn't cooperate with your country.

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

#155279

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> Nuno Silva wrote:
> 
>> s|b wrote:
>>
>>> I think it is EU law that a link to unsubscribe must be provided and
>  
>> That sounds stupid given that the chief advice has been not to follow
>> such links?
> 
> Only if it's phishing. When it's a legit mail it's actually an easy way
> to unsubscribe, usually with 1 or 2 mouseclicks.

And, if they tell you, it could take 3 days, 10 days, a month, or longer
before they remove you from their mailing list, or never.  Meanwhile you
keep getting their unwanted e-mails.

Unless you are expert at tracing the routing headers, like not getting
fooled by fake Received headers the scammer adds (clients add headers,
too), it may be difficult to prove legitimacy.

Oh, that's right, that's all to do with e-mails, including the opt-out
links you mention.  Carlos brought up RCS messaging where you don't get
any headers to check, so you don't know where they came from.  Lots of
business, even huge ones, don't pay to show text as their CallerID, so
all you see is some phone number that is worthless for even hinting at
identity even from non-scam sources.

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

#155280

On 2026-08-25 01:01, VanguardLH wrote:
> s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Nuno Silva wrote:
>>
>>> s|b wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think it is EU law that a link to unsubscribe must be provided and
>>   
>>> That sounds stupid given that the chief advice has been not to follow
>>> such links?
>>
>> Only if it's phishing. When it's a legit mail it's actually an easy way
>> to unsubscribe, usually with 1 or 2 mouseclicks.
> 
> And, if they tell you, it could take 3 days, 10 days, a month, or longer
> before they remove you from their mailing list, or never.  Meanwhile you
> keep getting their unwanted e-mails.
> 
> Unless you are expert at tracing the routing headers, like not getting
> fooled by fake Received headers the scammer adds (clients add headers,
> too), it may be difficult to prove legitimacy.
> 
> Oh, that's right, that's all to do with e-mails, including the opt-out
> links you mention.  Carlos brought up RCS messaging where you don't get
> any headers to check, so you don't know where they came from.  Lots of
> business, even huge ones, don't pay to show text as their CallerID, so
> all you see is some phone number that is worthless for even hinting at
> identity even from non-scam sources.

I just looked. You can select an RCS message, and click view details, 
but they are not much. Sent and arrival timestamp, and type (RCS).

Without selecting anyone, the three dot menu has "unsubscribe", which 
promises to send a message to the sender to request unsubscription. You 
can also block and mark as spam. This unsubscribe function does not 
exist for SMS messages, so one more reason to enable RCS.

If I tap at the top, the sender name, it gives info about the sender, 
including again the unsubscribe function.

At the bottom it says that it is an RCS chat for business, not encrypted.

I believe there is a certificate involved somewhere.


All that I see are good things about RCS messages.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#155292

On 2026-08-25, Carlos E.R. wrote:

>
> I just looked. You can select an RCS message, and click view details,
> but they are not much. Sent and arrival timestamp, and type (RCS).
>
> Without selecting anyone, the three dot menu has "unsubscribe", which
> promises to send a message to the sender to request
> unsubscription. You can also block and mark as spam. This unsubscribe
> function does not exist for SMS messages, so one more reason to enable
> RCS.

Honestly, this sounds a bit like when Linkedin did send weekly or what
was it spam messages to people not registered and said that the way to
disable it was to create an account.

That in itself is not a reason to go for RCS, especially if the SPAM
only comes via RCS. And not without a guarantee that "unsubscribe"
actually does something sane and is not just forwarded to the sender.


-- 
Nuno Silva

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

#155295

On 25.08.26 10:02, Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2026-08-25, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>>
>> I just looked. You can select an RCS message, and click view details,
>> but they are not much. Sent and arrival timestamp, and type (RCS).
>>
>> Without selecting anyone, the three dot menu has "unsubscribe", which
>> promises to send a message to the sender to request
>> unsubscription. You can also block and mark as spam. This unsubscribe
>> function does not exist for SMS messages, so one more reason to enable
>> RCS.
> 
> Honestly, this sounds a bit like when Linkedin did send weekly or what
> was it spam messages to people not registered and said that the way to
> disable it was to create an account.
> 
> That in itself is not a reason to go for RCS, especially if the SPAM
> only comes via RCS. And not without a guarantee that "unsubscribe"
> actually does something sane and is not just forwarded to the sender.

RCS is a Google trap. It is so obvious.

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

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

#155300

On 2026-08-25 10:02, Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2026-08-25, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>>
>> I just looked. You can select an RCS message, and click view details,
>> but they are not much. Sent and arrival timestamp, and type (RCS).
>>
>> Without selecting anyone, the three dot menu has "unsubscribe", which
>> promises to send a message to the sender to request
>> unsubscription. You can also block and mark as spam. This unsubscribe
>> function does not exist for SMS messages, so one more reason to enable
>> RCS.
> 
> Honestly, this sounds a bit like when Linkedin did send weekly or what
> was it spam messages to people not registered and said that the way to
> disable it was to create an account.
> 
> That in itself is not a reason to go for RCS, especially if the SPAM
> only comes via RCS. And not without a guarantee that "unsubscribe"
> actually does something sane and is not just forwarded to the sender.

The messages will come anyway. It is the ISP, it can send MMS for free. 
They did. If there is RCS, you get RCS messages instead.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#155303

On 25.08.26 14:30, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-08-25 10:02, Nuno Silva wrote:

>> That in itself is not a reason to go for RCS, especially if the SPAM
>> only comes via RCS. And not without a guarantee that "unsubscribe"
>> actually does something sane and is not just forwarded to the sender.
> 
> The messages will come anyway. It is the ISP, it can send MMS for free. 
> They did. If there is RCS, you get RCS messages instead.

They can be easily blocked and declared as spam in the messaging app. I
just checked on my Pixel.

Google is extremely evil and nobody needs RCS in the first place.


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

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

#155318

On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 18:01:07 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

> s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Nuno Silva wrote:
> > 
> >> s|b wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think it is EU law that a link to unsubscribe must be provided and
> >  
> >> That sounds stupid given that the chief advice has been not to follow
> >> such links?
> > 
> > Only if it's phishing. When it's a legit mail it's actually an easy way
> > to unsubscribe, usually with 1 or 2 mouseclicks.
 
> And, if they tell you, it could take 3 days, 10 days, a month, or longer
> before they remove you from their mailing list, or never.  Meanwhile you
> keep getting their unwanted e-mails.

They'll remove me /immediately/. If not (hasn't happened yet), then I
can file a complaint and they'll get fined. Talking about legit mails
here.
 
> Unless you are expert at tracing the routing headers, like not getting
> fooled by fake Received headers the scammer adds (clients add headers,
> too), it may be difficult to prove legitimacy.

If I buy something online, provide my e-mail address, then get mails
from that same company, I don't have to be an expert. I just have to
scroll down in their mail, where a (mandatory) link will be provided, so
I can unsubscribe and never hear from them again.

I'm not going to click unsubscribe in a phishing mail (obviously).
 
> Oh, that's right, that's all to do with e-mails, including the opt-out
> links you mention.  Carlos brought up RCS messaging where you don't get
> any headers to check, so you don't know where they came from.  Lots of
> business, even huge ones, don't pay to show text as their CallerID, so
> all you see is some phone number that is worthless for even hinting at
> identity even from non-scam sources.

Yup. Talking about mail, mostly.

-- 
s|b

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

#155291

On 24.08.26 19:13, s|b wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2026 22:20:05 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>> On 2026-08-23 19:12, s|b wrote:
>>
>>> I would expect there is some way to unsubscribe?
> 
>> First, I do not want to.
> 
> You like spam? (-:
>  
>> I possibly accepted or even signed a paper accepting them, and finding 
>> the address to unsubscribe is not easy. You can register in the Robinson 
>> List, which might work, or may not, if they understand that you signed 
>> for them.
> 
> I think it is EU law that a link to unsubscribe must be provided and
> unsubscribing must be made easy. 

Are you sure that this law also applies to messenger apps?


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

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

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

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

csiph-web