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
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 hookin
Simon Cozens wrote:
> Now *this* is why I want programmable mobile phones.
Me strokes the Java (well, J2ME) phone he has lying around and points at
http://www.midletcentral.com/.
I've just spent the last two days coding for the ARM chip in a new phone
for Sendo. It was hell. You don't want to
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:15:52AM +0100, 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
> > prevent
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 w
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
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 b
* 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, uno
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 i
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 im
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
> 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
"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)
"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
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 ha
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, i
* 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 st
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
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 (
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 07:12:02PM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote:
>
> 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'
They already offer
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
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 a
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 'num
* 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 forg
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
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 i
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/
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
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
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 answer
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/toil
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
> 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.
>
> personal>
>
>
> Yeah, me neither. Damn strangers, I don't talk to the
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> > 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
ah yes .. I don't even need to click the link as I've seen it b4 ..
excellent s
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
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 02:08:31PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> 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 -
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.
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
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
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 ma
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 answerp
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
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
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
> >
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
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 answer
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 internation
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 disconne
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
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
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 +
in
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
* 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.
>
> N
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
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.
-
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 legi
* at 15/05 12:04 +0100 James Powell said:
>
> My girlfriend got her first SMS spam the other week... all it said
> was "call this number 2320340 324 CompName EX7 TL7" (or similar).
the one i got the other day promised cheaper phone calls and all i
needed to do was phone this number at £1 a minut
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.
> >
> >
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 audi
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!
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
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]nge
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.
--
D
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
- 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 be
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
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 fo
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 so
* 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 place
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> 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
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
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.
Concu
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 Comp
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?
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
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\
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 nobo
74 matches
Mail list logo
