For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News

 

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 5 May 2005 15:27:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 198

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    New Twist on 'Phishing' Scam - 'Pharming' (Lisa Minter)
    Who Gets to See the E-mail of the Deceased? (Lisa Minter)
    Yahoo Says its Video Search Now Widely Available (Lisa Minter)
    U.S. Cities Set up Their Own Wireless Networks (Lisa Minter)
    Sock Puppets Defend Puppet Show (Jack Decker)
    FCC Seeking E-911 Requirement for VOIP (Telecom Daily Lead from USTA)
    Re: Connecticut's Suit Against Vonage is Less Than Baseless (Thor Simon)
    Re: Connecticut's Suit Against Vonage is Less Than Baseless (Tony P.)
    Re: Forward Fax to Email (Carl Navarro)
    Re: Forward Fax to Email (Dave Garland)
    Re: Forward Fax to Email (Scott Dorsey)
    Re: Wireless Headsets for Cordless Phones ? (Scott Dorsey)
    Re: Wireless Headsets for Cordless Phones ? (Jimbo)
    Re: Here's how Vonage-Verizon E-911 Will Work (Justin Time)
    Re: Collect Calls From Correctional Facilities (Lisa Hancock)
    Re: Collect Calls From Correctional Facilities (Mike Riddle)
    Re: Spam and Scam: E-mail From PayPal and Ebay (Barry Margolin)
    Re: Spam and Scam: E-mail From PayPal and Ebay (NOTvalid@surplus4actors)

Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet.  All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson 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
email.

               ===========================

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; other stuff of interest.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:42:06 -0400
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: New Twist on 'Phishing' Scam - 'Pharming'


http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0505/p13s01-stin.html

by Gregory M. Lamb Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

"The pharmers are coming! The pharmers are coming!" Hang warning
lanterns all over the Internet: It's under attack by a new scam.

For two years users have been hearing about "phishing," the sending of
bogus e-mails -- allegedly from a bank or other online business - by
criminals who hope to hook the unwary. Those who bite by clicking on a
hyperlink in the e-mail are shipped off to a phony but authentic-
looking website and asked to enter sensitive information. If they type
in their passwords or account numbers, thieves have that data.

Now phishers have been joined by "pharmers," who have made the ruse 
more sophisticated by planting a seed of malicious software in the 
user's own computer -- or poisoning servers that direct traffic on the 
Internet. The result: Even if you type in the correct address of a 
website, the software can send you to a bogus one.

"It's a rapidly growing threat, and one we've been seeing a lot more 
discussion about" among Internet security experts and people in the 
banking industry, says Lance Cottrell, founder and president of 
Anonymizer Inc. in San Diego, an Internet privacy and security firm. 
Phishing attacks "rely on some gullibility of and participation by the 
victims," Mr. Cottrell says, since they must be persuaded to click on a 
link within the e-mail. -But not clicking on such links "is no 
protection against a pharming attack.-"

Here's how the scam works. The thieves rely on the fact that the word
address you use, such as www.my-bank.com, is connected to a distinct
numerical address, like a browser to the right website. Pharming
replaces the number with a fraudulent one, sending you to a criminal
site instead of the real one.

Besides keeping antivirus and antispyware programming up to date on 
their PC, users have few other ways to defend themselves from pharming.

But any website that is conducting financial transactions should be 
able to maintain a secure website, Internet security experts say. The 
corner of the browser should display a padlock symbol, and the address 
in the address bar should begin with "https," not simply "http."

Are you being scammed?

To determine if you're at the real site, click on the lock symbol and
make sure it displays the address you are expecting to be at, says
Mikko Hyppoenen, chief research officer of F-Secure, an Internet
security company in Helsinki, Finland.

But another kind of pharming, sometimes called "domain spoofing," 
"domain poisoning," or "cache poisoning," attacks the servers that 
route traffic around the Internet. These so-called domain name system 
(DNS) servers also link the word address to its underlying numerical 
address.

To corrupt a DNS "takes significantly more expertise, more access"
than attacking PCs, says Peter Cassidy, secretary-general of the
Anti-Phishing Working Group, which has offices in Cambridge, Mass.,
and Menlo Park, Calif. That's why thieves first will try to get into
individual computers.

"They're the low-hanging fruit," he says. But "they'll try anything
that works." Some servers are hard to crack, he says, but others don't
keep their defenses up-to-date.

Unlike the traditional landline telephone system, which was built from
the outset to be a commercial enterprise, the Internet was designed to
make sharing of information between scholars and researchers fast and
easy, not for secure financial transactions.

"It was built in a laboratory by guys who knew each other and married 
each other's sisters," Mr. Cassidy says. Now new layers of security 
continually must be added, as criminals probe for weak points.

Spreading fraud

The Anti-Phishing Working Group reports that the number of new
phishing messages rose by an average 38 percent per month in the last
six months of 2004.

And pharming was one of the top five Internet scams in March 2005,
says a recent report from the National Cyber-Forensics & Training
Alliance, a nonprofit arm of the Direct Marketing Association.
Internet fraud in general, which includes phishing and pharming, cost
merchants $2.6 billion in 2004, $700 million more than in 2003,
according to CyberSource Corp., which processes Internet financial
transactions.

While Cassidy has seen some disturbing pharming attack reports from 
Britain, "we haven't seen it taking over the universe," he says. "We 
have seen significant attacks, but not rapid proliferation, partly 
because it does take a little more expertise."

One pharming technique is to flood the DNS server with messages to
trick it into saving false information that will send users to a phony
website, Cottrell says. "Then in many cases [the criminals] try to
bounce you back to the real bank's website, so that you're not aware
that anything has happened."

Phishers and pharmers set up their fake websites for only a few days or 
even a few hours, then move on before they can be found out.

Cottrell's company, Anonymizer, runs all its clients' Internet traffic 
through its own secure DNS servers, which he says can protect clients 
from pharming.

Keyboard trouble:

But even if crooks can't get at your PC or the DNS server, they can
always hope that you just can't spell.

Early last week, F-Secure discovered that a malicious website had been
set up at www.googkle.com, just one keystroke away from the famous
www.google.com site. Users who accidentally went to the site using the
popular Internet Explorer browser immediately were inundated with
spyware, adware, and other malicious software that tried to secretly
load itself onto their PCs.

By the end of last week, the site had disappeared. But Mr. Hyppoenen
still warns people not to try to visit it out of curiosity. "These
things sometimes pop up again," he says.

The technique isn't new. Similar attack sites have been created just a
slip of the finger away from sites such as CNN.com, AOL.com, and
MSN.com, Hyppoenen says.

The people behind the malicious sites can be anywhere from South Korea
to Brazil to Russia. The PC operating the site could be "somebody's
grandmother's computer in Canada" being remotely controlled without
her knowledge, he adds.

Gone 'phishing':

"Phishing" means sending out official-looking e-mails to tempt users
to visit a bogus website and type in personal or financial data. Here
are key points from a March report:

* Since July 2004, the number of websites linked to the scam rose an 
average 28 percent a month.

* The United States hosted a third of the phishing sites -- more than 
any other nation -- followed by China (12 percent) and South Korea (9 
percent).

* Financial services are the most frequent target, with 4 of 5 phishers 
appropriating the brand of a bank or some other financial institution.

* Such sites only last an average 5.8 days before they're taken down.

* A new version of the scam -- "pharming" -- plants malicious software on 
PCs to direct users to bogus sites.

Source: Anti-Phishing Working Group

Copyright 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. 

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. Read the Christian Science Monitor on line here each
day also: http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/nytimes.html (then scan
the far right column).

*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S.  Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, The Christian Science Publishing Society. 

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
 
------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:44:10 -0400
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Who Gets to See the E-mail of the Deceased?


http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0502/p12s02-usju.html

by Susan Llewelyn Leach Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

It's an old story with a heart breaking twist. A young marine is
killed in the line of duty in Iraq and his parents, in their sorrow,
request all his belongings, including his correspondence -- in this
case, his e-mail.

The Internet company refuses to give out the marine's password, saying
that would violate its privacy rules. The parents go to court, causing
a storm of discussion on the Net and in the media.

This small episode involving Yahoo! and the parents of US marine Justin 
Ellsworth raises new and tricky questions about the nature of e-mail. 
Should it be treated as paper correspondence or as something new? And 
how much access should relatives have to a record of the thoughts of a 
loved one who has passed away, especially ones that can be as 
extensive, intimate, -- and even embarrassing -- as in e-mail?

In this case, the probate judge ordered Yahoo! to hand over the
contents of the account. Yahoo obeyed the judge's instruction.

Many bloggers, of course, were horrified.

"We thought we had absolute privacy and now we have learned that after 
our death, a family member could possibly wrangle access to [our] 
personal space," one blogger lamented on drudge.com.

"If the soldier had wanted his family to read his e-mail, then he would 
have CC'd or BCC'd them," another wrote.

Yet many legal experts say Yahoo! acted correctly. It denied the 
family's informal request and only yielded under court order. "I would 
hope that the Yahoo! position here would become a trade practice -- that 
e-mail would only be released if a judge approved it," says Gerald 
Ferrera, executive director of the Cyberlaw Center at Bentley College 
in Waltham, Mass.

For Yahoo!'s part, the company says it still stands behind its
commitment to treat each user's e-mail as private and
confidential. "We are pleased that the court has issued an order
resolving this matter ... and allowing Yahoo! to continue upholding
our privacy commitment to our users," says Yahoo! spokeswoman Mary
Osako.

But from a legal point of view, e-mail's status is not clear cut. Even
the experts can't agree. One law professor describes it as "a property
interest," but not intellectual property. Another lecturer on law says
absolutely it is intellectual property and is covered by copyright
laws.

What makes these legal distinctions more critical is the growing volume 
of e-mail -- and with it rising privacy issues. Free e-mail accounts -- 
some with storage capacities up to 250 MB -- allow people to pile up 
digital photos, documents, and volumes of correspondence without a 
second's thought. Few people are thinking through the ramifications, 
says Alan Chappell, a privacy and data-collection consultant.

For instance, "You might have a situation where someone is carrying on
an affair and doesn't want his family to know about it if he should
die," says Henry Perritt, dean of Chicago-Kent College of Law at the
Illinois Institute of Technology. Or a confidential exchange of
e-mails might never be meant for a third party's eyes.

The legal solution, Professor Perritt says, is to write a will and
bequeath the e-mail to a trustee who is instructed to destroy
it. "That would leave no doubt in the service provider's mind about
what's supposed to happen," he says, "and it would keep it away from
your family."

But that takes considerable forethought.

Most people leave their privacy in the hands of e-mail providers,
rarely reading through the terms of service and privacy policy before
clicking the "I agree" box. Yahoo! states that its accounts are
nontransferable and that "rights to the Yahoo! I.D. and contents
within the account terminate upon death." Destroying the data once the
contract ends simplifies life for Internet service providers (ISPs),
says Mr. Chappell.

That gatekeeper role of ISPs and the amount of responsibility they
should have in retaining information are among the constant
battlegrounds in Internet law, says John Palfrey, executive director
of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law
School. For reasons of cost, ISPs are reluctant to keep data
indefinitely and then turn it over at a moment's notice, says
Mr. Palfrey.

Another area of contention in cyberlaw is whether contracts override
other rights such as copyright law, Palfrey adds. The tension here is
between a strict legal construction of the contract, he says, "versus
an equity or fairness analysis which would say, 'We've put a lot of
our personhood and identity into the information we're putting online
and it doesn't much matter what this contract says.' "

"In e-mail," he says, "your identity is wrapped up in it in a way that
your identity is not wrapped up in your car or some other tangible
object."

Copyright 2005 The Christian Science Monitor.

For a free sample copy of the print edition of the Monitor: 
http://www.csmonitor.com/aboutus/sample_issue.html

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. To review several good newspapers with no registration
or login requirements, and hear audio news reports from National
Public Radio, please go to URL
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/nytimes.html

*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S.  Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, The Christian Science Publishing Society.

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

------------------------------

Date: 05 May 2005 09:38:07 -0700
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Yahoo Says its Video Search Now Widely Aavailable


Yahoo has been working hard on this feature for a long time. What are
your thoughts about it?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050505/wr_nm/tech_yahoo_dc

------------------------------

Date: 05 May 2005 09:38:58 -0700
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com
Subject: U.S. Cities Set up Their Own Wireless Networks


Many cities, and even some small towns, have dealt with this. Although
some thought was given to it here in Independence, since there are
many netters here in our town, eventually the city authorities decided
against it -- at least for now -- as being a bit too much for them to
bite off.  What about where you live?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050504/wr_nm/life_wireless_dc

------------------------------

From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_at_request>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 01:52:39 -0400
Subject: Sock Puppets Defend Puppet Show


http://wifinetnews.com/archives/005233.html

By Glenn Fleishman

Okay, this is a new one on me: the curtain is thrown back but the
socks keep on talking, claiming there's no hand inside them: This
is pretty remarkable, but the New Millennium Research Council and
Issue Dynamics are defending their paid work on behalf of their
incumbent telecom and cable customers directly. No pretense, no
hiding. They want their cake and eat it, too.

Can it be said any clearer in this News.com article than a policy
advocate at Consumer's Union? "Sometimes we agree with the phone
companies, and sometimes we don't. But we never accept any money from
an interested party."

NMRC pretends to be independent. I have asked the many reporters who
have interviewed them, and unless they ask, the funding sources
aren't revealed, though NMRC does disclose its relationship with
Issue Dynamics on its Web site and vice versa. Reporters are being
handed experts to talk to that don't provide reasonable disclosure
about their financial ties to the organizations they are commenting
on.

The president of Issue Dynamics, Sam Simon, says, "We try to be
reasonably open about the fact that some research funding is from
business interest." It's true, they are from their end. But NMRC
is much less so, and it's not in Issue Dynamics's clients
interests for NMRC to be seen as an arm of the media relations
firm. (Update: Simon has jumped into the fray in the comments below;
I've posted his remarks unedited and replied.)

Full story at:
http://wifinetnews.com/archives/005233.html

How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home:
http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html

If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:51:05 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: FCC Chief Seeking E911 Requirement for VoIP


Telecom dailyLead from USTA
May 5, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21359&l=2017006

		TODAY'S HEADLINES
	
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Report: FCC chief seeking E911 requirement for VoIP
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Report: W. Europe to reach 100% mobile phone penetration
* Ericsson to close CDMA business in North America
* NFL Network, Verizon sign carriage deal
* MCI reports earnings
USTA SPOTLIGHT 
* Hear Telecom Crash Course author Steven Shepard at Telecom Engineering Conference @ SUPERCOMM
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Qualcomm takes wraps off all-in-one chips
* Searching the Web via cell phone
* MSOs bet on video e-mail
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* SEC probes Qwest stock trades

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21359&l=2017006

------------------------------

From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: Connecticut's Suit Against Vonage is Less Than Baseless
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 07:13:02 UTC
Organization: Public Access Networks Corp.
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com


In article <telecom24.197.8@telecom-digest.org>, Jack Decker
<jack-yahoogroups@workbench.net> wrote:

> And what about the fact that Connecticut filed the suit just about on
> the eve of today's announcement that Vonage will work with Verizon
> (the main local telco in Connecticut) to enable E911 solutions? Maybe

Jack,

Sometimes it seems you can't get _any_ of your facts straight.  The
"main local telco in Connecticut" is SNET.


Thor Lancelot Simon	                           tls@rek.tjls.com

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is
 to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem."  - Noam Chomsky

------------------------------

From: Tony P. <kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net>
Subject: Re: Connecticut's Suit Against Vonage is Less Than Baseless
Organization: ATCC
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 07:12:07 -0400


In article <telecom24.197.8@telecom-digest.org>, jack-
yahoogroups@workbench.net says:

> http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=399

> 5/4/2005
> -Posted by Russell Shaw @ 4:05 pm 

> Connecticut is the latest state to sue Vonage for misrepresenting the
> way in which the service handles "911" calls.

> Seems to me that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
> instructed his staff to obtain a copy of the Texas suit -- and after
> doing so, did some CPR (cut, paste, rewrite). Then, they drafted the
> current suit.

> The Connecticut suit has less than no merit. No specific Vonage
> customer in Connecticut seems to have suffered the trying consequences
> of Vonage 911-connect failure like that customer in Houston may have.

> And what about the fact that Connecticut filed the suit just about on
> the eve of today's announcement that Vonage will work with Verizon
> (the main local telco in Connecticut) to enable E911 solutions? Maybe
> Blumenthal and his folks didn't bother to check. Or, maybe he and
> his staffers were concerned that 911 solution progress is slower
> between Vonage and SBC (which covers part of Connecticut) than it is
> between Vonage and Verizon.

Actually Connecticut is SBC, not Verizon. That might have something to 
do with it. 

------------------------------

From: Carl Navarro <cnavarro@wcnet.org>
Subject: Re: Forward Fax to Email
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 03:23:03 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


On 4 May 2005 10:48:30 -0700, Jeremy <payday215@aol.com> wrote:

> I  currently have  a fax  number that  is widely  used by  my clients.
> Problem is that I  get a ton of fax "spam" if  you will.  I am looking
> for the BEST  solution to have these faxes  forwarded to e-mail, while
> keeping my  existing fax number since  that is the  one everyone knows
> and uses.

> I am somewhat familiar with e-fax, but they can not re-use my existing
> number, plus you have to pay  for outgoing faxes.  I have seen where I
> can have a forward feature put on my fax line that would forward to an
> e-fax number,  and I  would still be  able to  use my fax  machine for
> outgoing faxes (at least that is how I understand it).

> Because of  the number of  "spam" faxes I  receive via fax, I  have to
> replace my toner about every other week.  As you can imagine this is a
> very high expense  for me, so I  thought if I could have  them sent to
> e-mail  then i could  print the  ones I  want to  keep and  delete the
> trash.

> Does anyone have any better  solutions than this.  Someone mentioned a
> Microsoft Fax Software,  but I did not have  any luck finding anything
> out about  it, so therefore  I know nothing  about it.  Please  let me
> know if there is a better alternative solution.

The E-fax product has an ongoing cost of $12.95 a month, even if you
can get a local number.  Not very cost effective, since you still have
to maintain your fax number and pay for outbound faxes.

I use MaxEmail, which is a lot less, but my number is in suburban
Chicago.

A quick search of "fax software" on Google brings up
www.electrasoft.com where, for $60 you can get 3 or 4 fax programs
that will use your existing fax line and internet connection to send
and receive faxes.  I'd put this on the fax line, and program the fax
maching to not answer calls until the 4th ring.  Let the computer
answer the faxes and you can choose whether to send faxes via computer
or just walk to the fax machine.

You can try the software before you buy it.

Carl Navarro

------------------------------

From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
Subject: Re: Forward Fax to Email
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 02:33:06 -0500
Organization: Wizard Information


It was a dark and stormy night when Jeremy <payday215@aol.com> wrote:

> Does anyone have any better  solutions than this.  Someone mentioned a
> Microsoft Fax Software,  but I did not have  any luck finding anything
> out about  it, so therefore  I know nothing  about it.  Please  let me
> know if there is a better alternative solution.

Since your fax line is (presumably) already located where you wish to
read the faxes, you can skip the email step.  You'll need a computer
with a fax-modem in it (that's most modems made since 386 computers
and Windows 3.1 were the cutting edge of technology, and virtually all
computers sold in the last 5 years) and software.  There's software
that comes with Windows (since Win95), or bundled when you buy a
faxmodem, there's shareware, there's programs you can purchase
separately.  Most of these will save the faxes as images, one to a
page, and you can review them, delete the unwanted and select which to
print out.  Other programs often come with computers, or are bundled
with modems, some are shareware, some are commercial software, many of
them provide more bells and whistles than the version that comes with
Windows.  But you probably don't need bells and whistles.  Use your
desk computer, or dedicate an old junker, this doesn't require much
computing power.  (Of course, whatever computer you use, you'll have
to leave it turned on.)

If you're running Windows XP, see http://tinyurl.com/24csp or
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/learnmore/crawford_02october21.mspx for instructions.

------------------------------

From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Forward Fax to Email
Date: 5 May 2005 10:08:19 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)


Jeremy  <payday215@aol.com> wrote:

> I  currently have  a fax  number that  is widely  used by  my clients.
> Problem is that I  get a ton of fax "spam" if  you will.  I am looking
> for the BEST  solution to have these faxes  forwarded to e-mail, while
> keeping my  existing fax number since  that is the  one everyone knows
> and uses.

I find that if you take one or two of the fax spammers to court and
get judgments against them, you get on their bad list and suddenly the
amount of fax spam you receive is dramatically lowered.

> Because of  the number of  "spam" faxes I  receive via fax, I  have to
> replace my toner about every other week.  As you can imagine this is a
> very high expense  for me, so I  thought if I could have  them sent to
> e-mail  then i could  print the  ones I  want to  keep and  delete the
> trash.

That's why it's illegal to send fax spam, yes.  Has been for well over
a decade.  An afternoon in small claims court can get you a judgement
for a few tens of thousand dollars (which will probably never be paid,
of course), but more importantly it will provide relief.

--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

------------------------------

From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Wireless Headsets for Cordless Phones ?
Date: 5 May 2005 10:04:58 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)


Jimbo  <jmweb@comcast.net> wrote:

> I am wondering if there is a way, or a product, that would allow
> someone to wear a cordless headset (like the Bluetooth earpieces used
> for cell phones) and access a cordless (land line) phone setup ?

> My wife is handicapped and I would like to set her up this way so she
> does not have to carry the cordless phone around all day.

It wouldn't help, because bluetooth only has a range of a few feet, so
she would still have to have the cordless phone on her body.

You can get cordless phones with headsets and body packs.  Hello
Direct has a couple models.  That might be closer to what you're
wanting.


--scott

-- 
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

------------------------------

From: Jimbo <jmweb@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Wireless Headsets for Cordless Phones ?
Date: 5 May 2005 07:02:11 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Thanks, Pat ...

My wife is in about the same place -- she can move around ok, but
getting to the phone on time is a challenge.

I was hoping for something that didn't require something to be clipped
on a belt or shirt pocket (apparently the fairer sex do not normally
have these things), but I will look into this as a start !!

Thanks again,


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, the Uniden cordless phone is sort
of light-weight, you don't really notice it in your pocket or clipped
on your belt, and mine at least goes about a block away from home
if I wish to carry it around, when walking outside, although in those
cases I usually just carry my cell phone. (My set up is landline rings
three times, and call is set on ring/no answer to then go to my cell
phone. I'd let the landline ring 4-5 times before transfer to cell
phone but many people would grow impatient and disconnect, which they
sometimes do anyway, even with just three rings [which they hear; I
may have only recieved two rings and the start of the third], and
there is the briefest pause where they hear silence while the central
office yanks the call back and forwards it to my cell phone.) The
other suggestion made today was 'Hello Direct' which is a fine company
but I think a bit pricey. PAT]

------------------------------

From: Justin Time <a_user2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Here's how Vonage-Verizon E-911 Will Work
Date: 5 May 2005 05:30:45 -0700


While the process documented mirrors the process for traditional
landline phones, it doesn't address what happens when the VoIP user
takes their phone someplace else and then calls 9-1-1.  Which center
is called?  The one for their home of record or the one serving the
hotel/motel/grandma's house?

Rodgers Platt

------------------------------

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Collect Calls From Correctional Facilities
Date: 5 May 2005 08:20:19 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Jack Decker wrote:

> <http://www.inmatephoneservices.com/>. From time to time there has
> been some discussion about the high cost of calls from correctional
> facilities.

This is by state policy to make a handsome profit.  Considering the
families of prison inmates did nothing wrong and often poor, such a
policy seems immoral.

Considering that continuing family contact is very helpful in inmate
rehabilitation and morale (which translates to less fights and riots
within the prison and less recidisvm crime), it would be good public
policy NOT to make a profit on such calls, rather, to encourage such
calls at no more than cost or even at a subsidy.  The actual toll cost
to prisons for such calls is extremely low since states buy long
distance in bulk at very low rates; though there is a monitoring cost
and that is important for numerous security reasons.

> ...and also the fact that in many cases, people who have only
> cellular or VoIP service are unable to receive such calls, and this
> appears to be a partial solution.

Can cellular and VOIP services receive collect calls placed from
traditional locations, such as pay stations or landline phones?

Since VOIP could serve as someone's home telephone service, though
ought to be able to receive collect calls.  Emergencies happen.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Lisa, the Corrections Industry runs
things, not social workers. The Corrections Industry has no interest
at all in keeping guys from going back to prison. They are hoping in
fact they do go back. Nothing warms their hearts more than some
seventeeen or eighteen year old guy who gets a life sentence with no
chance of parole. That _always_ gives them a thrill when they contem-
plate the next thirty or so years of that guy's life. So please don't
get any weird ideas about 'keeping the family involved' or being able
to 'stay in touch with the world, etc'. Corrections has no time nor
place for all that rot. The _only reason_ prisons/jails have phones
for prisoner use at all is because those liberal Supremes and their
'run-away activist' court required them to do so several years
ago. You know the Judiciary which thinks _it_ is in charge of things.
Illinois, for example, deliberatly builds its prisons at the far
south end of the state -- 300 miles from Chicago -- although 95 
percent of the inmates are from Chicago. Their thoughts in Chicago are
the prisoner is 'scum' by extension his family must be also.  

Now regards _Billed Number Screening_, the telco database which (if
you choose to get listed on it) allows no collect nor third party
billings to your number. Ask your service rep if you want to get
listed there. It is a national (inter-telco) database which all telcos
consult when someone asks to make a 'collect' call or to 'bill this
call on my home phone'.  VOIP and cellular are all listed there by
default. You _cannot_ 'call collect' to VOIP or cell, and of course
VOIP does not even have any 'operator services' anyway, however cell
does have operator services, usually brokered through the incumbent
telco in the area. I know Prairie Stream (our local telco) for example
brokers its operator services from SBC and its directory assistance
through SBC also. You cannot 'call collect' to my house either; with
the cost of collect/third-party billing calls being so extravagent
as compared to the pennies you pay for direct dial (and an 800 number
being so cheap these days as well), why take a chance on some phreak
or phone phraud person playing a trick on you. PAT]

------------------------------

From: Mike Riddle <nospam@ivgate.omahug.org>
Organization: Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish & Short
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 11:55:58 -0500
Subect: Re: Collect Calls From Correctional Facilities


Jack Decker wrote:

> From time to time there has been some discussion about the high cost
> of calls from correctional facilities

Related to Jack's initial inquiry, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
just ruled on the question of jail charges and surcharges.  Gilmore
v. Cty of Douglas, found online at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=3Dcase&court=3D8th=
&no=3D04-1325

Pamela Gilmore brought an action against the County of Douglas
[Nebraska] under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that the Douglas County
Corrections Center (the DCCC) violated her Fourteenth Amendment equal
protection rights by assessing her charges for collect telephone calls
made to her from inmates in the facility. The district court concluded
that Gilmore failed to state a cause of action and dismissed the
complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

The Court of Appeals affirme the district court.

------------------------------

From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Spam and Scam: E-mail From PayPal and Ebay
Organization: Symantec
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 08:54:04 -0400


In article <telecom24.197.13@telecom-digest.org>,
shlichter1@aol.com <shlichter1@aol.com> wrote:

> Anyone get either or both of these e-mails?

> I know they were frauds right off since I have never used the address
> they were sent to for anything, except once last week to make a post
> here, that was before I fixed my newgroup client to munch my return
> address.

Uhh, where have you been?  Phishing scams like this are now one of the 
most prevalent forms of spam.


Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

------------------------------

From: NOTvalid@surplus4actors.INFO
Subject: Re: Spam and Scam: E-mail From PayPal and Ebay
Date: 5 May 2005 09:10:49 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Report bank/Ebay/Paypal scam/spam to Spam@uce.gov

other good addresses:

mail-spoof@cc.yahoo-inc.com,
spoof@yahoo-inc.com,
spoof@ebay.com,
spoof@paypal.com

I have the UCE and Spoof addys in address books of several several
EMail accounts including wife's.

For a second opinion, on questionable offers, submit to The Internet
Fraud Complaint Center http://www.ifccfbi.gov/index.asp

REMEMBER:
The new Federal Trade Commission address to report spam is:
Spam@uce.gov

--

Incredibly low long distance phone rates, as low as USA-Canada 1.9CPM!
Works as prepaid phone card. PIN not needed for calls from home or cell
phone. Compare the rates at https://www.onesuite.com/ No monthly fee or
minimum. Use promotion code "034720367" for some FREE time.

------------------------------


TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and
other forums.  It is also gatewayed 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 Patrick Townson. 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.

Contact information:    Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
                        Post Office Box 50
                        Independence, KS 67301
                        Phone: 620-402-0134
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 530-309-7234
                        Fax 3: 208-692-5145         
                        Email: editor@telecom-digest.org

Subscribe:  telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org

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

Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
  (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)

Email <==> FTP:  telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org 

      Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
      a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
      for archives files. You can get desired files in email.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from                  *
*   Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate  *
*   800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting.         *
*   http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com                    *
*   Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing      *
*   views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc.                             *
*************************************************************************

ICB Toll Free News.  Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.

One click a day feeds a person a meal.  Go to http://www.thehungersite.com

Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

              ************************

DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD!  REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM   SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !

              ************************

Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.

The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum.  Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.

Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu

              ************************

   ---------------------------------------------------------------

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.

End of TELECOM Digest V24 #198
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues