Re: Enough!
Simon Cozens wrote: One of the things I plan to do on my way around America after TPC is sit down with Kevin and DHD and start writing some funky robots. sphinx + infobot + reefknot + festival -- why hire a secretary when you can write one? :) I've been meaning to have a crack at hooking together Asterisk (OpenSource, http://www.asteriskpbx.com/main/), Festival (Speech Synthesis, http://www.cstr.ed.ac.uk/projects/festival/), Sphinx (OS, speech recognition, http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/sphinx/), Perl and one of the info bots/POE for a couple fo years now. I've just never had the time :( Fairly easy to write your own 'Wildfire'-esque system with this. Hook it into Mister House (open source home automation program, http://misterhouse.net/) and you could do some really funky things by just phoning up your house [ring ring, ring ring] Dipsy : hello Simon : I need an exit Errr, I'll just get me coat shall I?
Re: Enough!
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 10:27:47AM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote: Fairly easy to write your own 'Wildfire'-esque system with this. Hook it into Mister House (open source home automation program, http://misterhouse.net/) and you could do some really funky things by just phoning up your house Mandrake has already done this, I think. [ring ring, ring ring] Dipsy : hello ^ YM Operator. :) Simon : I need an exit -- Chomsky is COBOL -- Sean Burke
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 10:41:03PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 08:59:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: nokia 9210 Which is still, AFAIK, unobtainium. I know someone who knows someone who has a test model - I'll prod on programmability. Greg has (had?) one to play with. It is programmable. Had is the correct tense, seeing as Mr McCarroll is currently resting between engagements. Neil. -- Neil C. Ford Managing Director, Yet Another Computer Solutions Company Limited [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.yacsc.com
Re: Enough!
* Neil Ford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 10:41:03PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 08:59:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: nokia 9210 Which is still, AFAIK, unobtainium. I know someone who knows someone who has a test model - I'll prod on programmability. Greg has (had?) one to play with. It is programmable. Had is the correct tense, seeing as Mr McCarroll is currently resting between engagements. of course in the meantime you can download the nokia 9210 emulator that will allow you to test your programs ahead of time (check out nokia dev zone or some such) C++ programmers may also enjoy the very fine Symbian Programming by Tasker and co. -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Caller ID (was Re: Enough!)
At 21:08 15/05/01 +0100, you wrote: They already offer it. You can bar up to ten numbers (IIRC). I don't know how it deals with withheld numbers. Never checked. I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that you always send your CID when you make a phone call. If you choose to withhold the ID, it still gets sent, it just gets sent with a 'do not disclose' flag set, which all (BT approved) phones and services (like 1471) must honour. Therefore it should be easy for BT themselves to offer something that can bar CID witheld calls. But this might be wrong, or might just be how the US system works or something. -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Enough!
David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 08:59:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: nokia 9210 Which is still, AFAIK, unobtainium. I know someone who knows someone who has a test model - I'll prod on programmability. Greg has (had?) one to play with. It is programmable. The organiser bit I am sure is programmable but I was just wondering to what degree the phone part itself is accessible, eg. can you read the sort of phone information visible from the Nokia Net Monitor like the TIMSI etc. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you understand what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -- a. l.
Re: Caller ID (was Re: Enough!)
Jonathan Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that you always send your CID when you make a phone call. If you choose to withhold the ID, it still gets sent, it just gets sent with a 'do not disclose' flag set, which all (BT approved) phones and services (like 1471) must honour. Therefore it should be easy for BT themselves to offer something that can bar CID witheld calls. But this might be wrong, or might just be how the US system works or something. This is basically right but some ways of making a call don't send any CLI at all and the US and UK systems are different. The BT specs are online:- http://www1.btwebworld.com/sinet/227v3p1.pdf -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] the difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught. -- henry l. mencken
Re: Caller ID (was Re: Enough!)
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:59:07AM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote: I do keep intending to do something cute with my ISDN adapter and log the stuff coming out of the D channel and see whats in there ... but time has prevented it etc. I'd be interested to hear how you get on... I was under the impression that the D channel was an always on 16k-thing. It'd be interesting to see what gets sent down there normally... -Dom
Re: Caller ID (was Re: Enough!)
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:59:07AM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote: I do keep intending to do something cute with my ISDN adapter and log the stuff coming out of the D channel and see whats in there ... but time has prevented it etc. I'd be interested to hear how you get on... I was under the impression that the D channel was an always on 16k-thing. It'd be interesting to see what gets sent down there normally... CLI / Destination number that kind of thing. Signalling information basically. MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 20 8980 5714 (Home) http://colondot.net/ +44 7956 613942 (Mobile) In California they don't throw their garbage away -- they make it into television shows. -- Woody Allen, Annie Hall
Re: Enough!
* Steve Mynott ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 08:59:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: nokia 9210 Which is still, AFAIK, unobtainium. I know someone who knows someone who has a test model - I'll prod on programmability. Greg has (had?) one to play with. It is programmable. The organiser bit I am sure is programmable but I was just wondering to what degree the phone part itself is accessible, eg. can you read the sort of phone information visible from the Nokia Net Monitor like the TIMSI etc. there are definetly telephone APIs available for EPOC, now i'm not sure if you can replace they default phone functionality or not so that your app would handle the incoming call, i'll have a read up on it later -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: Caller ID (was Re: Enough!)
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:59:07AM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote: I do keep intending to do something cute with my ISDN adapter and log the stuff coming out of the D channel and see whats in there ... but time has prevented it etc. I'd be interested to hear how you get on... I was under the impression that the D channel was an always on 16k-thing. It'd be interesting to see what gets sent down there normally... ummm it might be 9k6 but yes, its always on. My card will do either two B (64k) channels or a B and D channel ... most of what gets sent down there is CLID, charge info, etc .. I think they strip a load of it off if you only pay for home highway .. and allow it through if you pay for business highway... ie they actually go to some trouble to provide a worse service .. fules. -- Robin Szemeti Redpoint Consulting Limited Real Solutions For A Virtual World
Re: Caller ID (was Re: Enough!)
Matthew Byng-Maddick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 16 May 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:59:07AM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote: I do keep intending to do something cute with my ISDN adapter and log the stuff coming out of the D channel and see whats in there ... but time has prevented it etc. I'd be interested to hear how you get on... I was under the impression that the D channel was an always on 16k-thing. It'd be interesting to see what gets sent down there normally... CLI / Destination number that kind of thing. Signalling information basically. I have heard of people using the D channel signalling to communicate for free. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have. -- harry emerson fosdick
Re: Caller ID (was Re: Enough!)
Steve Mynott wrote: I have heard of people using the D channel signalling to communicate for free. I've also heard of phone companies cursing such users and trying to ban programs that support that. At least in Germany, there was a program (or several?) that took advantage of the fact that when you initiate a connection, you can also transfer a small data packet. So they would initiate a connection and include a small data packet, then immediately tear down the connection before it was answered, and initiate another connection with the next few bytes. All this stuff was free (since no connection was established completely), but apparently a lot of load on the switching network. However, German Telecom used to have a service (don't know whether they still do) whereby you could have an always-on connection using the D channel with a type of Datex-P-over-ISDN (a packet-switched(?) network in Germany where you pay by the packet rather than by the minute, and where no permanent connections are established: a bit like UDP). So you could have your email delivered to you, or stock ticks, or other stuff that didn't need high bandwidth. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Enough!
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:04:43PM +0100, Natalie Ford wrote: At 15:09 14/05/01, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: Please, would you take the politics elsewhere? Some of us really don't give a shit either way. Hear hear! I am getting tired of hitting delete... :) procmail++ If anybody wants a hand getting it set up to autofilter mail, give me a shout. -Dom
Re: Enough!
* Steve Mynott ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Personally I find discussion of politics more interesting than American TV shows about vampires. I enjoy aspects of the thread about politics, but get bored when it all goes down old roads. However what i'd really hate is any restrictions placed on the topics of London.pm , politics should be just as welcome as BtVS. -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: Enough!
Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: and before simon gets there: use Mail::Audit; To which Johan Vromans would probably reply: use Mail::Procmail; Chacun à son goût. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
RE: Enough!
From: Greg McCarroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] However what i'd really hate is any restrictions placed on the topics of London.pm , politics should be just as welcome as BtVS. Or, even, Perl :) Dave... -- The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system.
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 09:57:03AM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: and before simon gets there: use Mail::Audit; Mail::Audit is for *weaklings*. My first act as Benevolent Dictator will be to ban it, and mandate procmail. I have been discussing this with my soon-to-be-announced Post and Telecoms Advisor, and we are considering funding the development of a procmail-a-like for snail-mail. It will be a delightfully Heath-Robinson mechanical whatsit which will clip on to the inside of your letter box, and will reject spam with GREAT VENGEANCE and FURY. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david
Re: Enough!
- Original Message - From: David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 4:10 AM Subject: Re: Enough! Mail::Audit is for *weaklings*. My first act as Benevolent Dictator will be to ban it, and mandate procmail. I have been discussing this with my soon-to-be-announced Post and Telecoms Advisor, and we are considering funding the development of a procmail-a-like for snail-mail. It will be a delightfully Heath-Robinson mechanical whatsit which will clip on to the inside of your letter box, and will reject spam with GREAT VENGEANCE and FURY. A starving cat in a cage suspended just inside the letterbox trained to associate the smell of Jehova's witnesses and doubleglazing salesmen with hungry dog. Been done before.
Re: Enough!
David Cantrell wrote: a delightfully Heath-Robinson mechanical whatsit which will clip on to the inside of your letter box, and will reject spam with GREAT VENGEANCE and FURY. For GREAT JUSTICE. Cheers, Phi how do smurfs make little smurfs? lip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Enough!
Greg McCarroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I enjoy aspects of the thread about politics, but get bored when it all goes down old roads. However what i'd really hate is any restrictions placed on the topics of London.pm , politics should be just as welcome as BtVS. It is with me. -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 10:10:23AM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: a delightfully Heath-Robinson mechanical whatsit which will clip on to the inside of your letter box, and will reject spam with GREAT VENGEANCE and FURY. But you're missing a critical feature. If the thoughtful Spam M[oi]ngers are kind enough to include a freepost return envelope, the machine should carefully tear up all the accompanying glossies and return them in it at their expense. For great justice... Martin
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 10:04:45AM +0100, Cross David - dcross wrote: From: Greg McCarroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] However what i'd really hate is any restrictions placed on the topics of London.pm , politics should be just as welcome as BtVS. Or, even, Perl :) Oh, please, we have *some* standards. -Dom
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 10:10:23AM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: we are considering funding the development of a procmail-a-like for snail-mail. I want a procphone. -- VMS must die!
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 11:49:18AM +0100, Martin Ling wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 11:33:07AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 10:10:23AM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
we are considering funding the development of a procmail-a-like for
snail-mail.
I want a procphone.
Now that's reasonably feasible. Tap the incoming audio signal and feed
it to Viavoice + Perl. Have the phone be automatically answered with a
recording of your own voice saying 'Hello?'. Feed the conversation out
to speakers for your interception and amusement - if you want to take
the call, just pick up - otherwise, the script will listen for key
phrases in the incoming response ('double glazing', 'market research',
etc, etc...) and immediately on recieving one deliver a pre-recorded
appropriate rant before hanging up. With a little more advancement, it
could be got to respond to some simple fore-spam ('Can I speak to ...' /
'speaking', etc).
Hmm. I like it, wonder if the software's up to it though.
Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers.
And if it's withheld, answer with a terse message and disconnect.
My girlfriend got her first SMS spam the other week... all it said
was call this number 2320340 324 CompName EX7 TL7 (or similar).
jp
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote: Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers. Definitely. A whitelist too, of course. And if it's withheld, answer with a terse message and disconnect. No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. My girlfriend got her first SMS spam the other week... all it said was call this number 2320340 324 CompName EX7 TL7 (or similar). Odd. Most of the ones I've seen are filthy. Martin
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:15:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote: Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers. Definitely. A whitelist too, of course. Now *this* is why I want programmable mobile phones. -- Be not anxious about what you have, but about what you are. -- Pope St. Gregory I
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:22:35PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: Definitely. A whitelist too, of course. Now *this* is why I want programmable mobile phones. The particularly (interesting|annoying) bit is that recent phones have hardware capabilities sufficent for a procphone - same code as does the voice dialling. Ho hum. If I wasn't trying to get some work done, I'd grab sphinx and write some code. Martin
Re: Enough!
* Simon Cozens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:15:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote: Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers. Definitely. A whitelist too, of course. Now *this* is why I want programmable mobile phones. nokia 9210 -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:30:59PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote: The particularly (interesting|annoying) bit is that recent phones have hardware capabilities sufficent for a procphone - same code as does the voice dialling. Ho hmm... Nokia appealing to Linux coders to help with their new set-top boxes, saying We are convinced that openness is the way forward. So, you'll be letting us at the firmware for this nice little phone then... Martin
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:30:59PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote: Ho hum. If I wasn't trying to get some work done, I'd grab sphinx and write some code. One of the things I plan to do on my way around America after TPC is sit down with Kevin and DHD and start writing some funky robots. sphinx + infobot + reefknot + festival -- why hire a secretary when you can write one? :) -- An algorithm must be seen to be believed. -- D.E. Knuth
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:38:16PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: Now *this* is why I want programmable mobile phones. nokia 9210 Bleh, wearable and a GSM card. Martin
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:15:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote: Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers. Definitely. A whitelist too, of course. And if it's withheld, answer with a terse message and disconnect. No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. That's what the terse message is for (reveal yourself, or bugger off). I suppose it could go to answerphone. jp
Re: Enough!
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Martin Ling wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote: Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers. Definitely. A whitelist too, of course. And if it's withheld, answer with a terse message and disconnect. No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. ??? ... its simple. If they choose to withhold their number I choose to reject their call. they can always dial code to release their number if they choose. Many large organisations have an alternate presentation number so you get the number of the switchboard ratehr than the office extension number. I simply don't want people phoning me up who refuse to own up to who they are before they invade my privacy. -- Robin Szemeti The box said requires windows 95 or better So I installed Linux!
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:43:59PM +0100, James Powell wrote: No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. That's what the terse message is for (reveal yourself, or bugger off). I suppose it could go to answerphone. Caller detect doesn't work for international calls either. -- but I'm one guy working weekends - what the hell is MS's excuse? We don't care, we don't have to, we're the phone company. - Ben Jemmet, Paul Tomblin.
Re: Enough!
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:43:59PM +0100, James Powell wrote: No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. That's what the terse message is for (reveal yourself, or bugger off). I suppose it could go to answerphone. Caller detect doesn't work for international calls either. Untrue. When I get calls from friends in Sweden I can see who they are. -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 01:25:23PM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Caller detect doesn't work for international calls either. Untrue. When I get calls from friends in Sweden I can see who they are. And when I get calls from Japan, which happens about twice a week, I can't. -- Britain has football hooligans, Germany has neo-Nazis, and France has farmers. -The Times
Re: Enough!
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 01:25:23PM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Caller detect doesn't work for international calls either. Untrue. When I get calls from friends in Sweden I can see who they are. And when I get calls from Japan, which happens about twice a week, I can't. Ok, so you should have said Caller detect doesn't work for some international calls either. -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:48:26PM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote: No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. ??? ... its simple. If they choose to withhold their number I choose to reject their call. Okay, whatever, I don't, it's an *option*. Martin
Re: Enough!
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Simon Cozens wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:43:59PM +0100, James Powell wrote: No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. That's what the terse message is for (reveal yourself, or bugger off). I suppose it could go to answerphone. Caller detect doesn't work for international calls either. yeah .. thats fine .. it doesn't work from creaky old strowger exchanges either (are there any of those left ? ) but there is a subtle difference between 'number withheld' and 'number unavailable' ... rejecting on withheld is reasonable, reject on unavailable might not be such a good idea. -- Robin Szemeti Redpoint Consulting Limited Real Solutions For A Virtual World
Re: Enough!
Robin Szemeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 15 May 2001, Simon Cozens wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:43:59PM +0100, James Powell wrote: No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. That's what the terse message is for (reveal yourself, or bugger off). I suppose it could go to answerphone. Caller detect doesn't work for international calls either. yeah .. thats fine .. it doesn't work from creaky old strowger exchanges either (are there any of those left ?) http://www.light-straw.co.uk/ate/strowger.html -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
Re: Enough!
At 12:48 15/05/01 +0100, you wrote: extension number. I simply don't want people phoning me up who refuse to own up to who they are before they invade my privacy. This response inspired by not directed at previous poster i.e. not personal Yeah, me neither. Damn strangers, I don't talk to them and neither do my kids. And if there's an unexpected knock at the door, I pretend I'm out. Too much crime. Too many weirdos. I don't open letters without a return address - and if they've been _hand delivered_ with unknown handwriting - that's just sick, man. And if someone stops me in the street and asks for directions I _always_ ask to see ID. Now, If my mate phones me up in the restaurant or the train, well I always take the call, I mean communication is the cornerstone of society, man, yea I always have a good old laugh on the mobile in the pub, down the shops, in the library. It's just invasion of privacy I'm against. -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Privacy, its their choice! ( was Re: Enough!)
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Robin Szemeti wrote: On Tue, 15 May 2001, Martin Ling wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote: Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers. Definitely. A whitelist too, of course. And if it's withheld, answer with a terse message and disconnect. No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. ??? ... its simple. If they choose to withhold their number I choose to reject their call. they can always dial code to release their number if they choose. Many large organisations have an alternate presentation number so you get the number of the switchboard ratehr than the office extension number. I simply don't want people phoning me up who refuse to own up to who they are before they invade my privacy. I also have killfile entries for all the usenet anonymizers that I know of for precisely the same reason. /J\
Re: Enough!
From: Robin Szemeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] well .. I believe you have extended the analogy just a little bit too far :) . .the main reason _I_ decline to answer 'withheld number' calls is because almost every single one is a halfwit trying to sell me insurance/glazing/burglar alarms/toilet roll (yes.. really) even though Yes - they generally call me between 6pm and 8pm. If we leave the phone to the answering machine around this time, and the caller doesn't leave a message, then 1471 always tells me that The caller withheld their number. We keep winning free holidays/windows/kitchens etc I say No - I do not want a free $gift and the people at the call center get quite indignant that I do want it, and that I musn't understand the offer. I have worked as a telemarketer, so feel a bit sorry for them as it's a shit job, so I just say No thanks and hang up. /Robert
Re: Enough!
Greg McCarroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Simon Cozens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:15:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote: Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers. Definitely. A whitelist too, of course. Now *this* is why I want programmable mobile phones. nokia 9210 But is it actually programmable by the end user? -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] /\ \ / x ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail / \
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:15:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote: And if it's withheld, answer with a terse message and disconnect. No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. And me refusing to answer them is *my* legitimate privacy concern. I find that refusing to answer CLID-free calls, and using the answering machine, is a sufficient procphone. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our most advanced operating system in the world which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:38:16PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: * Simon Cozens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Now *this* is why I want programmable mobile phones. nokia 9210 Which is still, AFAIK, unobtainium. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our most advanced operating system in the world which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 01:15:57PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:43:59PM +0100, James Powell wrote: No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. That's what the terse message is for (reveal yourself, or bugger off). I suppose it could go to answerphone. Caller detect doesn't work for international calls either. I think this depends on the telcos. It works perfectly for calls between Vodafone and whatever GSM provider it is that covers NYC. Anyway, we accept imperfect mail filtering, we'll accept imperfect phone filtering. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our most advanced operating system in the world which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 02:08:31PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 01:38:26PM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: Ok, so you should have said Caller detect doesn't work for some international calls either. But, you see, if a call ID is withheld, you can't tell whether they're international calls with non-working caller detect or domestic calls from ex-directory/paranoid numbers. So filtering on withheldness is BAD BAD BAD. No it's not bad. They get filtered to the answering machine so I can deal with them later*. As far as I'm concerned, it's THEIR FAULT that I can't id them. I *really* don't care if their telco is broken. Everyone who I can envision needing to talk to me urgently (family, close friends) has CLID enabled. * - if I'm filtering. I'm not filtering at the moment. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our most advanced operating system in the world which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh
Re: Enough!
* Steve Mynott ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Greg McCarroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Simon Cozens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:15:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote: Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers. Definitely. A whitelist too, of course. Now *this* is why I want programmable mobile phones. nokia 9210 But is it actually programmable by the end user? yes -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] /\ \ / x ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail / \ -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
Re: Enough!
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Simon Cozens wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 02:09:47PM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote: yeah .. thats fine .. it doesn't work from creaky old strowger exchanges either (are there any of those left ? ) but there is a subtle difference between 'number withheld' and 'number unavailable' There is, but not all phones make the distinction. well if I was intending to base my filtering on withheld/unavailable I would make sure my phone *did* make the distinction .. most do. Also BT are intending to introduce a service called 'choose to refuse' where for a simple one-off payment you can automatically offer 'withheld' callers the option of pressing '1' to release their number or some such. AIUI 'not availbale' numbers can be passed on with a 'distinctive ring' -- Robin Szemeti Redpoint Consulting Limited Real Solutions For A Virtual World
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 05:00:28PM +0100, Robert Shiels wrote: I have worked as a telemarketer, so feel a bit sorry for them as it's a shit job, so I just say No thanks and hang up. You can buy these little devices that emit a canned request to be removed from the lists which these people are legally required to do or else face being in quite some trouble. It's quite funny, hold the keychain toy up to the mic and let it rip. Paul
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: nokia 9210 Which is still, AFAIK, unobtainium. I know someone who knows someone who has a test model - I'll prod on programmability. Martin
Re: Enough!
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 08:59:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: nokia 9210 Which is still, AFAIK, unobtainium. I know someone who knows someone who has a test model - I'll prod on programmability. Greg has (had?) one to play with. It is programmable. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our most advanced operating system in the world which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh
Re: Enough!
Dave Hodgkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please, would you take the politics elsewhere? Some of us really don't give a shit either way. Dave (the other one) told us to! -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] a classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read. -- mark twain
Re: Enough!
On 14 May 2001, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: Please, would you take the politics elsewhere? Some of us really don't give a shit either way. I did warn them but they appeared to ignore me ... /J\
Re: Enough!
At 15:59 14/05/01 +0100, you wrote: On 14 May 2001, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: Please, would you take the politics elsewhere? Some of us really don't give a shit either way. I did warn them but they appeared to ignore me ... Actually I think we can be very proud of ourselves for having had a flame free politics thread. I think we all deserve a drink. P.S. Next meeting I shall be standing on a chair and distributing copies of my new pamphlet The Scientific and Social Reform Party or 'Jack and the Journeyman': A Treatise on the Equitable and Scientific running of Society for the Good of All and the Furtherment of Mankind. Also available from WE Thompson and Sons, Printers, Orpington Yard, price 2d. /J\ -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Enough!
Jonathan Stowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 14 May 2001, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: Please, would you take the politics elsewhere? Some of us really don't give a shit either way. I did warn them but they appeared to ignore me ... Can't you just kill on politics subject? (I will try and use the subject header in my posts anyway so people can) Personally I find discussion of politics more interesting than American TV shows about vampires. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] work like you don't need the money dance like nobody's watching love like you've never been hurt.
Re: Enough!
At 15:09 14/05/01, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: Please, would you take the politics elsewhere? Some of us really don't give a shit either way. Hear hear! I am getting tired of hitting delete... :) - Natalie Ford Iterative Software Ltd. http://www.iterative-software.com Yet Another Computer Solutions Company Ltd. http://www.yacsc.com
Re: Enough!
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 03:31:07PM +, Steve Mynott wrote: Can't you just kill on politics subject? (I will try and use the subject header in my posts anyway so people can) Personally I find discussion of politics more interesting than American TV shows about vampires. Concur. I share JP's being impressed at how flame free it was. Bravo! -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] work like you don't need the money dance like nobody's watching love like you've never been hurt. I misread that (ENOCOMMA), dance like you've been hurt, love like you need the money, and work like you're being watched :-) Paul
