Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #155420 > unrolled thread
| Started by | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-31 09:01 -0400 |
| Last post | 2026-09-09 12:53 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 173 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
How does whatsapp work? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-08-31 09:01 -0400
Re: How does whatsapp work? Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-08-31 09:20 -0600
Re: How does whatsapp work? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-01 00:51 -0400
Re: How does whatsapp work? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-31 20:37 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-01 01:01 -0400
Re: How does whatsapp work? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-01 09:44 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-09-01 12:47 +0200
Signal (was: Re: How does whatsapp work?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-01 12:21 +0100
Re: Signal (was: Re: How does whatsapp work?) "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-09-01 16:30 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-01 19:15 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-01 19:32 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-01 21:25 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-01 21:26 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-01 21:53 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 11:20 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 17:10 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:37 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 21:23 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 21:36 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 22:31 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 22:32 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 02:40 +0530
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 23:24 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 11:39 +0845
[OT/Meta] Trolling (was: Re: Signal) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-03 11:37 +0100
Re: [OT/Meta] Trolling Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-04 03:43 +0930
Re: Signal Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-03 11:28 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-04 02:31 +0930
[OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-02 11:18 +0100
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 17:10 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:25 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 22:28 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 22:33 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 02:41 +0530
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 23:25 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 11:35 +0845
Re: [OT] "trolling" Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 20:07 +0000
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-10 09:27 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:24 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-02 18:56 +0000
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 21:18 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 21:38 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 22:27 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 22:33 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 05:58 +0845
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 23:25 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 11:36 +0845
Re: Signal Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-01 18:59 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-01 21:18 +0200
Re: Signal Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-02 11:11 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 17:18 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:28 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 21:25 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 21:38 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 22:32 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 23:00 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 02:39 +0530
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-01 19:05 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-01 19:13 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-01 20:52 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-01 21:27 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-01 21:50 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 11:20 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 17:11 +0200
Re: Signal Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-02 18:50 +0100
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:30 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 21:34 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 21:51 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 22:34 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 23:00 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 06:00 +0845
Re: Signal Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-03 09:42 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-04 03:13 +0930
[OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-04 13:12 +0100
Re: [OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-08 21:04 +0300
Re: [OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-09-08 19:32 +0000
Re: [OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-09 08:21 +0300
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 21:31 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 21:51 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 22:27 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 22:34 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 02:37 +0530
Re: Signal Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-03 11:55 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-04 02:44 +0930
[OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-04 12:39 +0100
Re: Signal micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-09 08:44 +0300
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-04 09:56 +0200
[OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-06 10:17 +0100
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-06 13:59 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-06 13:34 +0100
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-06 20:07 +0200
Re: [OT] "trolling" micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-09 08:51 +0300
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-09 12:49 +0200
Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-09 09:55 -0700
Re: Contacts Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-10 10:16 +0100
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-10 09:30 -0700
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-10 17:49 +0000
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-10 21:33 -0700
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-11 06:54 +0000
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-11 01:24 -0600
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-11 11:09 -0700
Re: Contacts Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-11 18:23 +0000
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-11 12:56 -0600
Re: Contacts Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-11 19:37 +0000
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-11 12:46 -0600
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-11 12:48 -0700
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-11 21:59 -0230
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-11 19:12 -0700
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-12 01:31 -0100
Re: Contacts Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-12 13:00 +0000
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-12 08:32 -0700
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-12 17:31 +0000
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-12 13:05 -0700
Re: Contacts Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-12 18:00 +0000
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-12 13:05 -0700
Re: Contacts micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-17 13:33 +0300
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-17 12:30 +0000
Re: Contacts Siard <saylor259@mailbox.org> - 2026-09-17 15:12 +0200
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-17 16:12 +0000
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-17 18:48 +0200
Re: Contacts Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-09-18 10:04 +0200
Re: Contacts Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2026-09-18 10:00 +0200
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-18 10:58 -0700
Re: Contacts micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-17 13:26 +0300
Re: Contacts Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-11 00:30 +0100
Re: Contacts micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-12 21:58 +0300
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-12 13:16 -0700
Re: Contacts micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-13 05:06 +0300
Re: Contacts micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-13 05:15 +0300
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-12 20:40 -0700
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-13 11:22 +0545
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-13 06:05 -0700
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-13 06:54 -1000
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-13 14:17 -0700
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-15 00:50 +0000
Re: Contacts Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-13 19:02 +0000
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-13 14:17 -0700
Re: Contacts Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-14 21:56 -0300
Re: Contacts AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-20 00:15 -0700
Re: Contacts micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-23 21:02 +0300
Application identification on Motorola Android (was: Re: Contacts) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-13 08:11 +0100
Re: Signal Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-02 21:12 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 22:26 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 22:40 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 02:35 +0530
Re: Signal Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-03 00:03 +0100
Re: Signal Nuno Silva <user17785@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-03 01:00 +0000
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-04 02:47 +0930
[OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-03 11:49 +0100
Re: [OT] "trolling" Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-04 03:38 +0930
Re: [OT] "trolling" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-04 09:26 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:29 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 21:33 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 21:51 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 22:35 +0200
Re: Signal "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 23:00 +0200
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 02:36 +0530
Re: Signal Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-02 11:24 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-02 17:30 +0200
Re: Signal Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-03 09:29 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-04 03:04 +0930
Re: Signal Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-03 18:46 +0100
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-04 04:22 +0930
Re: Signal Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-01 19:20 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-01 17:03 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:56 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-02 21:04 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-09-04 21:15 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-05 14:14 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-09-05 18:03 +0200
Re: How does whatsapp work? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-01 14:37 +0000
Re: How does whatsapp work? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-09-09 09:07 +0300
Re: How does whatsapp work? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-09 12:53 +0200
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-13 08:11 +0100 |
| Subject | Application identification on Motorola Android (was: Re: Contacts) |
| Message-ID | <1185iai$dd3v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155905 |
On 2026-09-13, micky wrote: > In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 13 Sep 2026 05:06:14 +0300, micky > <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote: > >>In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 12 Sep 2026 13:16:20 -0700, AJL >><noemail@none.com> wrote: >> >>>micky wrote: >>>> AJL wrote: >>> >>>>> The Contacts app in my 7 year old Samsung phone is listed as a >>>>> Verizon app. When I bring up its info screen it doesn't say who >>>>> makes it but gives the version number of 13.1.30.10 if that's a >>>>> clue? >>> >>>> I'm sure it's a clue. I have a 1-year old Motorola phone and it >>>> says version 1.7.34 If they're only on version 1, they must have done >>>> a really good job on their first try, or maybe they only realized >>>> recently that people want to save phone numbers. Or maybe they >>>> scrapped the earlier version and are working up something new. >>> >>>I'm not sure how version numbers work but your 1 year old phone version >>>1.7.34 could have had 34 updates if it started at 1.7.00. Nah, probably >>>not... ;) >> >>I din't think to say that this was an AT&T phone to begin with. Still >>displays the ATT logo on start-up, and I think shutdown. > > As always, I'm a little slow. The place to see if I had two contact > apps is the, I think the name is, app drawer, and I do. The first one > is the one I said. The second one wants permission to access my > contacts, and I said no. Then it wants permission to make and manage > phone caslls and I said No. Then it said I had Disabled a required > permission, and it closed, so I don't know the version. > > In this larger format, the icon for the second one is much darker blue > than the first. Only his arms are lighter blue. > > I'm using the Nova launcher and it keeps sending me apps, but this is > the first time it sort of installed one. They usuuall have "ad i" in > the upper right corner. There is other advertising too. In the list of open apps/windows/activities (which I think is not part of the launcher UI, but from the Motorola build of Android, reachable with the left or right bottom bar soft button, the one which is not "back"), at the top of each entry, you should have an icon which is a drop-down menu, one of the items is App info. I'm expecting that, even after refusing the permissions and the app "closing", it might still appear on that list, so you could do that to reach the name, version and installer of the second app. (As for launcher-specific features, Fossify offers "App info" on long press too, home screens and app drawer.) -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 21:12 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <1179vvm$3489o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155527 |
On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote: > Nuno Silva wrote: >> What you're using is sending the same post several times? > > Hi Nuno, > > Since my response was in response to Carlos' posts, please explain why you > didn't chastise Carlos for doing what you accuse me of doing. > > Look at the thread. > a. Who provided the facts > b. Who denied them repeatedly, without providing any facts > c. And then who repeated himself, over and over and over again > > Who? Nuno. > Answer that question please. > > Please do not post further until you answer that question. > Thanks! Please use another client or e.g. newsgrouper to look at the thread, there were at least three identical or very similar posts with the content of the one I replied to. I meant what I asked. It looks like something in your posting workflow is occasionally sending a reply more than once. Mistakes can happen when coding, or when gluing parts together, and I'm assuming that's all that it was... -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 22:26 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <117a0pm$3191$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155539 |
Nuno Silva wrote: > I meant what I asked. Then ask it of Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 22:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <d6emmmx5bu.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #155539 |
On 2026-09-02 22:12, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote: > >> Nuno Silva wrote: >>> What you're using is sending the same post several times? >> >> Hi Nuno, >> >> Since my response was in response to Carlos' posts, please explain why you >> didn't chastise Carlos for doing what you accuse me of doing. >> >> Look at the thread. >> a. Who provided the facts >> b. Who denied them repeatedly, without providing any facts >> c. And then who repeated himself, over and over and over again >> >> Who? Nuno. >> Answer that question please. >> >> Please do not post further until you answer that question. >> Thanks! > > Please use another client or e.g. newsgrouper to look at the thread, > there were at least three identical or very similar posts with the > content of the one I replied to. He does not use a news client. He writes in vim, then uses scripts to post it directly, so that he can handle the headers, in order to hide his identity. He says it is because of keeping his privacy. He has a peculiar sense of privacy. And, he changes his name often, thus evading the killfile filters. Maybe as a consequence of this is, he doesn't threads track correctly. Maybe it is intentional. > > I meant what I asked. It looks like something in your posting workflow > is occasionally sending a reply more than once. You noticed :-) > > Mistakes can happen when coding, or when gluing parts together, and I'm > assuming that's all that it was... > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-03 02:35 +0530 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <117a32h$24a5$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155555 |
Carlos E.R. wrote: > And, he changes his name often, thus evading the killfile filters. Stop this bullshit Carlos. You know almost every post from me is about privacy. I never change who I am. If you're fooled, then that's your fault 'cuz I change nothing. Same phone. Same home screen. Same excellent grammar. etc. I openly said who I was, on January 1st, 2026, and you know that. So stop it with your incessant trolling of this newsgroup. Just stop it. If you can't supply even a single fact in rebuttal to the claims that both Andy and I helpfully made about Android contacts privacy, then just stop posting this childish bullshit simply because you can't defend your religious belief system. Either post facts about contacts privacy, or stop trolling this ng.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-03 00:03 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <117a9vt$37dui$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155560 |
On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote: >> And, he changes his name often, thus evading the killfile filters. > > Stop this bullshit Carlos. > You know almost every post from me is about privacy. It's been a long day for me, and right now it'd be very difficult to resist the urge of posting my initial response to the several dozens of posts stemming out of this exchange exclusively using the characters whose ASCII and UCS codepoints are between 0x41 and 0x5A. So I'll leave that for tomorrow. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <user17785@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-03 01:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <1788397212-17785@newsgrouper.org> |
| In reply to | #155572 |
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> posted: > On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote: > > > Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> And, he changes his name often, thus evading the killfile filters. > > > > Stop this bullshit Carlos. > > You know almost every post from me is about privacy. > > It's been a long day for me, and right now it'd be very difficult to > resist the urge of posting my initial response to the several dozens of > posts stemming out of this exchange exclusively using the characters > whose ASCII and UCS codepoints are between 0x41 and 0x5A. > > So I'll leave that for tomorrow. > (Well, I should add a few exceptions/additions, like 0x20, 0x2C, 0x2E, but you get the idea...)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 02:47 +0930 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <117ca3r$pu8$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155574 |
Nuno Silva wrote: > I should add a few exceptions/additions, like 0x20, 0x2C, 0x2E I don't know what you're talking about, but I do want to ask you, politely, why you "challenged" me for responding repeatedly to Carlos' trolls, and yet, you never once questioned Carlos on why he repeated his trolls. Why? Why did you ignore that I was responding to Carlos' denials of fact, when it was Carlos who was copying and pasting his own posts many times over. Why Nuno? This is not logical, Nuno. It's biased. Why do you not ask of Carlos the exact same question you asked of me?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-03 11:49 +0100 |
| Subject | [OT] "trolling" (was: Re: Signal) |
| Message-ID | <117bjcj$3j6ut$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155527 |
On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote: > Nuno Silva wrote: >> What you're using is sending the same post several times? > > Hi Nuno, > > Since my response was in response to Carlos' posts, please explain why you > didn't chastise Carlos for doing what you accuse me of doing. I was *not* chastising. The only reason why I singled you out was that I had only noticed this on your posts, together with the fact you had IIRC mentioned your posting workflow before, so I assumed that could be at fault. *Now* I see Carlos also has some repeated replies in this (sub)thread, so apologies if this lack of completeness felt rude in any way, that was not the intent. Heck, the wording of my question does, I think, make it somewhat clear I was thinking this was a problem in the posting software or workflow, and not an intentional action for you. You could have just clarified you did that in response to Carlos also repeating responses... > Look at the thread. > a. Who provided the facts > b. Who denied them repeatedly, without providing any facts > c. And then who repeated himself, over and over and over again I'd rather not look at the thread more than once, I'll strongly pretend it was all written by Michelle Dubois of the resistance. > Who? Nuno. > Answer that question please. > > Please do not post further until you answer that question. > Thanks! -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 03:38 +0930 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] "trolling" |
| Message-ID | <117cd3m$2t9d$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155587 |
Nuno Silva wrote:
> You could have just clarified you did that in response to Carlos also
> repeating responses...
Hi Nuno,
Given you asked me why I repeated my response, but you didn't even think to
ask Carlos, there's a problem there in how you applied logical deduction.
Why didn't you ask Carlos?
NB: That's bias number 1 on your part.
Worse...
Why did you claim all facts by Andy and me "can" be wrong, when you didn't
even think to ask Carlos to supply even a single fact that disputes ours?
Why didn't you ask Carlos to supply even a single facts, Nuno?
NB: That's bias number 2 on your part.
And yet, it gets even worse in terms of you agreeing with the trolls...
When Carlos makes a specious claim that "we proved it long ago", which is
bullshit, you BELIEVE it, hook line and sinker. Who does that?
Did you ask Carlos for a cite to a thread or message ID?
No.
You simply believed that brazen lie that Carlos already hashed it out.
NB: That's bias number 3 on your part.
That's three clear cases of bias on your part where you take the side of
the trolls, and yet, you claim of the people contributing value that the
court cases, documentation, and references all 'can' be wrong.
WTF?
Your bias is so astoundingly in favor of the trolls that it's disgusting.
Seriously.
Since you believe only what the trolls are telling you, and yet, you must
realize that they haven't proved a single thing, what does that make you?
I'm very serious.
I will never respond to you if you can't answer to those adult issues.
Or at least accept that they are facts, and simply apologize for doing them
as Usenet is, to me, water under the bridge.
Point being I'll still respond to Carlos, even though he's trolling us.
But that's because I'm a kind-hearted good person who says it like it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 09:26 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] "trolling" |
| Message-ID | <qe8qmmxee7.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #155587 |
On 2026-09-03 12:49, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2026-09-02, Maria Sophia wrote: > >> Nuno Silva wrote: >>> What you're using is sending the same post several times? >> >> Hi Nuno, >> >> Since my response was in response to Carlos' posts, please explain why you >> didn't chastise Carlos for doing what you accuse me of doing. > > I was *not* chastising. > > The only reason why I singled you out was that I had only noticed this > on your posts, together with the fact you had IIRC mentioned your posting > workflow before, so I assumed that could be at fault. *Now* I see Carlos > also has some repeated replies in this (sub)thread, so apologies if > this lack of completeness felt rude in any way, that was not the intent. > > Heck, the wording of my question does, I think, make it somewhat clear I > was thinking this was a problem in the posting software or workflow, and > not an intentional action for you. > > You could have just clarified you did that in response to Carlos also > repeating responses... Which were just responses to Arlen repeated "you are a troll" posts. Till I realized those were many posts and stopped replying. > >> Look at the thread. >> a. Who provided the facts >> b. Who denied them repeatedly, without providing any facts >> c. And then who repeated himself, over and over and over again > > I'd rather not look at the thread more than once, I'll strongly pretend > it was all written by Michelle Dubois of the resistance. > >> Who? Nuno. >> Answer that question please. >> >> Please do not post further until you answer that question. >> Thanks! > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 20:29 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <4h6mmmxak4.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #155505 |
On 2026-09-02 17:11, Maria Sophia wrote: > Nuno Silva wrote: >> At this point I feel that >> >> 1) More detail or context would be necessary to explain why Carlos has >> responded like that (seemed to be about past conversations), and >> >> 2) More detail would also be needed to understand why are you already >> designating this "trolling". >> >> Please see this less of a request for comment and more as an assessment >> of somebody who is puzzled by how the conversation came to this so >> quickly. It *is* true I've not been subscribing to this group for long, >> though... ideally I'd just go with the >> >> "read [...] for one to two months before you post anything" >> >> prescribed in RFC 1855, extended to a longer period, but this seems to >> involve two people who are otherwise regular posters in productive >> threads here and one of them in other groups I've been in for longer. > > Hi Nuno, > > Carlos is trolling. > The facts prove it. Shall we ask the group again who is trolling? We had a vote here in thread «Vote: Is Arlen, aka Maria Sophia, a troll?», and those that replied said that yes, you are a troll, whereas those you call "trolls" are not. Subject: Vote: Is Arlen, aka Maria Sophia, a troll? Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2026 22:41:35 +0100 From: Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android Message-ID: <mvhh8fFgkgsU6@mid.individual.net> ... Ignoring the rest. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 21:33 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <1179tmh$6ci$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155517 |
Carlos E.R. wrote: > Shall we ask the group again who is trolling? Stop it with your childish trolling, Carlos. Just stop it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 21:51 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <jabmmmx00l.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #155528 |
On 2026-09-02 21:33, Maria Sophia wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote: >> Shall we ask the group again who is trolling? > > Stop it with your childish trolling, Carlos. > Just stop it. Stop trolling, Arlen. You started. You do not accept criticism, and you insult us then calling us trolls or fools. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 22:35 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <117a1a5$hcq$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155536 |
Carlos E.R. wrote: > You do not accept criticism Instead of your constant trolling, why not provide even a single fact that backs up your denials of the docs that both Andy & I have kindly posted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 23:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <1dfmmmxs12.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #155549 |
On 2026-09-02 22:35, Maria Sophia wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote: >> You do not accept criticism > > Instead of your constant trolling, why not provide even a single fact that > backs up your denials of the docs that both Andy & I have kindly posted. The issue is clear for everyone to see. I will not answer to you in this thread anymore. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-03 02:36 +0530 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <117a34v$8o2$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155559 |
Carlos E.R. wrote: > The issue is clear for everyone to see Indeed, it is. Either post facts about contacts privacy, or stop trolling this ng.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 11:24 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <1178thl$2lkoc$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155481 |
On 2026-09-01, Maria Sophia wrote: > It's also a fact, that (up until now), read contacts meant all contacts. > But that's changing, so I'm using this opportunity to provide new facts. > *Contact Picker: Privacy-First Contact Sharing* > <https://developer.android.com/blog/posts/contact-picker-privacy-first-contact-sharing> > "Historically, applications requiring access to a specific user's > contacts relied on the broad READ_CONTACTS permission. > While functional, this approach often granted apps more data than > necessary. The new Android Contact Picker, introduced in Android 17, > changes this dynamic by providing a standardized, secure, > and searchable interface for contact selection." On 2026-09-01, Andy Burns wrote: > I hadn't noticed Android 17's new contact sharing ... > > <https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/contact-picker-privacy-first-contact.html> > > allows selective sharing of contacts, rather than all contacts, > allows time-limited access to contacts Now that looks awesome, and it really should have been around for years already. I don't want to have to choose between all or nothing. Or at least make it manageable by a main contacts application which can edit and group contacts in other contact lists, but still with proper sandboxing, so that you can copy details over when needed. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 17:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <1179ffj$aqr$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155501 |
Nuno Silva wrote: >> <https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/contact-picker-privacy-first-contact.html> >> >> allows selective sharing of contacts, rather than all contacts, >> allows time-limited access to contacts > > Now that looks awesome, and it really should have been around for years > already. I don't want to have to choose between all or nothing. > > Or at least make it manageable by a main contacts application which can > edit and group contacts in other contact lists, but still with proper > sandboxing, so that you can copy details over when needed. Hi Nuno, Andy and I have shown a level of awareness of contacts privacy that extends well past what a "normal Android user" may be aware of, so it's good to know that both Andy and I independently noted in this thread that progress. To those who religiously believe, sans any facts, that "contacts are private", I would simply point them to the court cases where they're not. I would also point them to the basic observation that if Google "fixed" something, then maybe it was a problem, because it's clear Google fixed it well *after* the iOS court case where Apple fixed that problem years ago. Now, let's be clear about one very important observation, which is that even the Android 17 contacts-privacy method is not going to solve it. The Android 17 capability gives Android what iOS users have had for a while now, which we discussed in gory detail in previous threads on this ng. In Android 17, as I understand it (as I am stuck on Android 13, but I do have a recent Galaxy tablet on Android 16 I believe), we can give only certain contacts to the app which is requesting those contacts, if the app incorporates the code that Google provides in the link that Andy supplied. Hmmm.... That's a good step in the right direction, but the cites I provided show that it's not even remotely close to a solution to the privacy problem. When you study how contacts work, you find out that the "privacy dashboard" that Google loves to cite, doesn't actually tell you what you need to know. In addition, there is no GUI on Android that tells you what you need to know, and while adb tells you a lot more of what you need to know about contacts, and how they're used, even adb can't tell you ephemeral stuff. So, in the end, it's my well-studied observation, that the only way to keep contacts even remotely private, is to store them in a separate database that even Google can't access, which is what Signal & OpenContacts does. Think about that fact. If apps which are open source and known to care about contacts privacy resort to NOT using the default contacts sqlite database, doesn't that tell us something about the insecurity of the default sqlite database? Anyway, that's just one of the many facts which lead to my well-researched observation that it's impossible to maintain contacts privacy if we store our contacts in the default sqlite contacts database on Android (or iOS). We've had this discussion many times on Android where some people simply deny those facts, which is fine, but they don't provide a counter argument. They simply say all facts they don't like, are wrong. Which is NOT something I'm going to let stand on this technical newsgroup! -- Trust and privacy are often, unfortunately, mutually exclusive in that the more you build one, the more you might erode the other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-03 09:29 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Signal |
| Message-ID | <nfspdqF28egU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155501 |
Nuno Silva wrote: > Andy Burns wrote: > >> <https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/contact-picker-privacy-first-contact.html> >> >> allows selective sharing of contacts, rather than all contacts, >> allows time-limited access to contacts > > Now that looks awesome, and it really should have been around for years > already. I don't want to have to choose between all or nothing. What google needs to do is set a sunset date for the old contacts sharing permission, to force WhatsApp & co to move on ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 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