29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for April 10, 2011
====== 29 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Bill Horne and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. - Geoffrey Welsh
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 10:28:53 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: After Breach, Companies Warn of E-Mail Fraud Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> After Breach, Companies Warn of E-Mail Fraud By MIGUEL HELFT April 4, 2011 SAN FRANCISCO - Security experts said Monday that millions of people were at increased risk of e-mail swindles after a giant security breach at an online marketing firm. The breach exposed the e-mail addresses of customers of some of the nation's largest companies, including JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Target and Walgreens. In some cases customer names were also stolen. While the number of people affected is unknown, security experts say that based on the businesses involved, the breach may be among the largest ever. And it could lead to a surge in phishing attacks - e-mails that purport to be from a legitimate business but are intended to steal information like account numbers or passwords. "It is clearly a massive hemorrhage," said Michael Kleeman, a network security expert at the University of California, San Diego. The marketing firm that suffered the breach, Epsilon, which handles e-mail marketing lists for hundreds of clients, disclosed the problem in a brief statement on Friday. But its sheer scale became clear over the weekend and on Monday, as banks, retailers and others began alerting their customers to be on the lookout for fraudulent e-mails. While e-mail addresses may not seem particularly vulnerable, experts say that if criminals can associate addresses with names and a business like a bank, they can devise highly customized attacks to trick people into disclosing more confidential information, a technique known as "spear phishing." ... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/business/05hack.html
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 13:45:37 -0700 From: Sam Spade <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: After Breach, Companies Warn of E-Mail Fraud Message-ID: <lNGdnSQF8NbvWD3QnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@giganews.com> Monty Solomon wrote: > > While e-mail addresses may not seem particularly vulnerable, experts > say that if criminals can associate addresses with names and a > business like a bank, they can devise highly customized attacks to > trick people into disclosing more confidential information, a > technique known as "spear phishing." > Rule #1: Never respond to emails that appear to be a legitimate institution requesting any personal information. For that matter just trash any message like that.
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 10:28:53 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Cellphone Radiation May Alter Your Brain. Let's Talk. Message-ID: <email@example.com> Cellphone Radiation May Alter Your Brain. Let's Talk. By KATE MURPHY March 30, 2011 In a culture where people cradle their cellphones next to their heads with the same constancy and affection that toddlers hold their security blankets, it was unsettling last month when a study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association indicated that doing so could alter brain activity. The report said it was unclear whether the changes in the brain - an increase in glucose metabolism after using the phone for less than an hour - had any negative health or behavioral effects. But it has many people wondering what they can do to protect themselves short of (gasp) using a landline. "Cellphones are fantastic and have done much to increase productivity," said Dr. Nora Volkow, the lead investigator of the study and director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health. "I'd never tell people to stop using them entirely." Yet, in light of her findings, she advises users to keep cellphones at a distance by putting them on speaker mode or using a wired headset whenever possible. The next best option is a wireless Bluetooth headset or earpiece, which emit radiation at far lower levels. If a headset isn't feasible, holding your phone just slightly away from your ear can make a big difference; the intensity of radiation diminishes sharply with distance. "Every millimeter counts," said Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, an online newsletter covering health and safety issues related to exposure to electromagnetic radiation. So crushing your cellphone into your ear to hear better in a crowded bar is probably a bad idea. Go outside if you have to take or make a call. And you might not want to put your cellphone in your breast or pants pocket either, because that also puts it right up against your body. Carry it in a purse or briefcase or get a nonmetallic belt clip that orients it away from your body. Some studies have suggested a link between cellphone use and cancer, lower bone density and infertility in men. But other studies show no effect at all. Given the mixed messages and continuing research, Robert Kenny, a Federal Communications Commission spokesman, said in an e-mail, "As always, we will continue to study this issue and coordinate with our federal partners." ... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/technology/personaltech/31basics.html
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 17:17:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Joseph Singer <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Afghanistan does NOT have more cellular competition than the US Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Thu, 7 Apr 2011 22:35:58 -0500 John Mayson <email@example.com> wrote: > To have true competition in the US we would need complete > interoperability (i.e. all providers work off the same standard) and > the freedom to take the phones we outright own across the street to > another provider. There are likely reasons why there was no mandate for one technology over the other in the US. One reason is that the US government's stance has usually been to let the market declare what the standard is going to be. It's been that way historically with wired telephony as well to one extent or another. The EU had a mandate to make mobile telephony across Europe a reality where previously there had been a hodgepodge of various analogue standards. It was decided to go with GSM (at that time Groupe Special Mobile nka Global System for Mobile communications) so all of Europe could be united with one common standard. Later the standard was rolled out to many other countries not a part of the EU. GSM wasn't always a world standard. It was adopted world-wide later. With that said even in the US with the present GSM landscape with AT&T and T-Mobile it's all not completely compatible since both T-Mobile and AT&T don't have all the same frequencies for everything. T-Mobile's 2G network is GSM at 1900 Mhz (PCS) and AT&T's network is both GSM at 1900 Mhz (PCS) as well as 850 (cellular.) Most phones sold by T-Mobile have been able to use 850 Mhz as well over the last few years or so and can roam where allowed on 850 networks. Most subscribers on GSM networks such as AT&T and T-Mobile don't even know their phones are locked to the network where they bought their phones or even know that there is more than one standard used for mobile telephony. In fact most people wouldn't have a clue what technology their network uses... even those with iPhones since when most people get a new iPhone from AT&T they never even see the SIM card in the phone since it was pre-installed in it.
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
|Contact information:||Bill Horne|
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
bill at horne dot net
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization.