29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
The Telecom Digest for July 23, 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: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:53:49 -0700 From: AES <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Google Search problems Message-ID: <siegman-10DC5B.email@example.com> Are there any newsgroups or responsible forums where one can learn about/discuss/complain about Google search problems? [Which are certainly becoming much more annoying/frustrating/infuriating in recent days!!!]
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 22:37:56 +0100 From: Peter R Cook <PCook@wisty.plus.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Google Search problems Message-ID: <YIBkR7H02eKOFwxj@wisty.plus.com> In message <siegman-10DC5B.email@example.com>, AES <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes >Are there any newsgroups or responsible forums where one can learn >about/discuss/complain about Google search problems? > >[Which are certainly becoming much more annoying/frustrating/infuriating >in recent days!!!] There is an interesting book called " The Filter Bubble" by Eli Pariser you might want to read -- Peter R Cook
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 07:29:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Leatherock <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Tracing Calls w/Spoofed Numbers? Message-ID: <1311344973.40672.YahooMailClassic@web111722.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 7/21/11, Pete Cresswell <x@y.Invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote: > From: Pete Cresswell <x@y.Invalid.telecom-digest.org> > Subject: Re: Tracing Calls w/Spoofed Numbers? > To: email@example.com. > Date: Thursday, July 21, 2011, 8:17 PM > Per David Clayton: > >And of course we ALL know that best practice IVR > prompts go: > > > >"For Dave please press 1." > > > >Not "Try and remember this number until I finally give > you the reason to > >use it" ;-) > > That one went right over my head. > > How about a dumbed-down explanation for the > humor-impaired? If [they] announce "Press 1 for Dave." you have to remember the "1" before you know [who] it's for. If you [hear] "For Dave, press 1" you know that what follows is the number you want or don't want. The first way, you may not remember where you are in a fairly long list, most of which you have no interest in. Wes Leatherock firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:45:18 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Automatic License Plate Readers track your every move Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> John Mayson <email@example.com> wrote: > My question is do we have an expectation of privacy in a public > space? Having shades in our windows at home is different than > operating a motor vehicle on a public road. Police can already read > license plates with their eyeballs and have been able to for > decades. But if a machine does it, that's bad? > Just playing Devil's Advocate here, I really have no strong opinions > either way. I'll agree that the ACLU representative's analogy was a little specious and that there is no expectation of privacy in public. But then the questions to ask: If the right to privacy doesn't exist, should we at least expect anonymity when seen by police, without police making attempts to positively identify one and all and trying to track movements? When the police are not investigating crimes, should they still treat every encounter with someone as a potential criminal or potential witness? If police resources are investigating "citizens above suspicion", are they ignoring investigate crimes and criminals the public does need protection from?
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:00:27 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: area code named beer Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Lisa or Jeff <email@example.com> wrote: >It seems that Budweiser will market beer named for the primary area >code of a city. For instance, Philadelphia will soon have "215 beer" >and there's a 312 for Chicago. 312 Urban Wheat Ale is a product of Goose Island Beer Company, Chicago. Anheuser-Busch bought Goose Island for $38.8 million back in March. This was no surprise as Goose Island has long been distributed by them. Anheuser-Busch has been buying out small brewers around the country. There may not be microbrewing of these beers any longer, but the mass marketer is replacing it with micro branding. A-B considers craft brewing to be a threat to its mass brands.
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:13:06 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Most cellphone voice mail is vulnerable to hackers Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Thor Lancelot Simon <email@example.com> wrote: >David Clayton <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >>I seem to remember that Voice Mail services from network providers used >>the secure ID data (used for 1-800 etc.), not the stuff that can be >>spoofed and appears on your phone. >No. There is no "secure ID data". The number used for 800 number >billing is delivered by a service called ANI, which delivers the BTN, >the *Billing Telephone Number* for a given account. This is much harder >to spoof, but will also be identical for many different phones billed to >the same company -- so is not useful for purposes like identifying a >voicemail customer. . . . I don't agree. BTN the telephone number associated with the master account record. ANI is the line number. An account comprises a single line or hundreds or thousands of lines, depending on the nature of the telephone subscriber. In the case of outgoing trunks, you're right, ANI won't identify what extension the was dialed from. However, ANI received probably won't be BTN.
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:22:21 +0000 (UTC) From: "Adam H. Kerman" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject: Re: Most cellphone voice mail is vulnerable to hackers Message-ID: <email@example.com> Robert Bonomi <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >Pete Cresswell <x@y.Invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote: >>Per David Lesher: >>>A host is a host from coast to coast.................email@example.com >>>& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX >>>Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 >>>is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 >>Is the verse to defeat 'bots? >>If so, is that a real email addr... and does the verse work? >It will defeat only the dumbest of harvesters. >***** Moderator's Note ***** >Not necessarily: I've been working on regular expressions to help me >process the daily digest, so this subject has been on my mind, and >there's a big 'gotcha' in David's .sig file: his email address is next >to a character (a period) that is valid in emails. >From what little I've seen of spammers and their software, that would You've quoting "From ". Only the dumbest of mail clients used that expression to identify the Berkeley Mail-style delimiter and they should not be indulged. Can you please turn the feature off as it messes up quoting levels? >defeat the majority of harvesters. The "dumbest" harvesters confine >themselves to "From:" lines, since that is low-hanging fruit, but >picking emails out of the body of Usenet posts isn't that easy. I >could write a regular expression that finds any at-sign, and then >includes everything on either side that is valid in an email address: >the trick, however, is knowing when to stop. That picks out Message-IDs as possible email addresses, so don't do that. In any event, email addresses are harvested from the From header because the article itself is not being parsed. There is a NEWSOVERVIEW database on the News server which includes selected headers from a Usenet article, including the From header, and not the article itself, so processing this is much less resource intensive. >This isn't a forum for regexp design, so I'll just say that I don't >think there's a whole lot of sophistication in harvest bots. >Bill Horne >Moderator >P.S. BTW, anyone who knows how to inlcude newlines in emacs >replace-regexp commands, please contact me offline via >bill at horne dit net. Don't learn emacs. That way lies madness.
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:53:16 -0400 From: Telecom Digest Moderator <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Most cellphone voice mail is vulnerable to hackers Message-ID: <20110722215316.GA16458@telecom.csail.mit.edu> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 05:22:21PM +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >Telecom Digest Moderator wrote: > >From what little I've seen of spammers and their software, that would > > You've quoting "From ". Only the dumbest of mail clients used that > expression to identify the Berkeley Mail-style delimiter and they > should not be indulged. Can you please turn the feature off as it > messes up quoting levels? ****************************************************************************************************** Quick note: my email software puts a ">" in front of the word "From" if it is at the start of a line, because my emails are stored in a file that uses "From" lines to separate each email from the others. So, this email will appear at your electronic doorstep with the following "header" info: From firstname.lastname@example.org Fri Jul 22 17:53:17 2011 Return-path: <email@example.com> Envelope-to: (... etc. There is a LOT of header info in EVERY email) ... which can cause confusion between the "From" line at the start of each message, and the word "From" at the start of a line inside the message. ****************************************************************************************************** I'll certainly check it out: I thought it was a "standard" practice, required to allow mailbox files to properly separate messages, but if it's arcane I'll be glad to turn it off - assuming I can find out how. ;-) > >P.S. BTW, anyone who knows how to inlcude newlines in emacs > >replace-regexp commands, please contact me offline via > >bill at horne dit net. > > Don't learn emacs. That way lies madness. Extend-meta-alt-control-spacebar! Extend-meta-alt-control-spacebar!! Extend-meta ... -- Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:16:47 -0400 From: Pete Cresswell <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com. Subject: Re: Tracing Calls w/Spoofed Numbers? Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Per David Scheidt: >He means good prompts are "for Foo, press 1." Not "Press 1 for foo". >I know I want foo, or am at least likely to decide that's what I want >when I hear it as an option, so all I have to do is listen for press 1. >If you tell my which button to push, I have to remember that and listen >to the explanation at the same time. > >That's annoying. It's worse if there's more instruction than that. Thanks. Now that it's been said, I can see that it really would be annoying. OTOH, for telephone solicitors....... -) "H E L L O....... Y O U......... H A V E...... R E A C H E D.... THE...............SLOW.............. TALKERS.........OF..... AMERICA........ PLEASE......... PRESS...... 1..... FOR........ -- PeteCresswell
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.