Pat, the Editor

27 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 
Message Digest 
Volume 28 : Issue 159 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Re: Usenet newsgroups
  Re: Usenet newsgroups
  Re: Usenet newsgroups
  Re: Usenet newsgroups
  Re: Usenet newsgroups 
  Re: ANI vs. Caller ID 
  Re: ANI vs. Caller ID 
  (TELECOM) HELP ...WHO IS PROVIDING THIS TOLL-FREE NUMBER
  Re: Usenet newsgroups


====== 27 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 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, and other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:08:06 -0700 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups Message-ID: <h0p7c7$unv$1@news.eternal-september.org> John Mayson wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Michael > Grigoni<michael.grigoni@cybertheque.org> wrote: >> tlvp wrote: >> >> Careful ;) � aioe.org is regarded as the "home of trolls and >> identity thieves" by many long-time usenet posters. > > <snip> > >> ***** Moderator's Note ***** >> >> Sounds like a crock. If aioe.org is an nntp server, then it's messages >> would be distributed through Usenet in the usual fashion, so if anyone >> was being a troll or abuser, the reputation would follow the poster. > > Perhaps Michael was being funny? I visited the website > http://aioe.org/ and they have limits to posting. In fact the limits > are such that I as a legitimate USENET user couldn't use them. I > can't imagine a spammer making good use of their servers. > > I went through this last year when Road Runner dropped USENET. I > settled on Altopia.com for $6/month. Very fast servers, always work, > etc. I ended up dropping them for other reasons and am now using > motzarella.org. I'm not overly impressed, but since I'm paying > nothing and I don't even get a spam tagline, I'm not going to > complain. > > I really hope USENET isn't dying. My first taste of the Internet was > via USENET in 1987 and I've been hooked every since. > > John > II just started using motzarella.org yesterday and really don't see much difference between them and the AT&T servers, except the AT&T update faster. -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:30:18 -0500 From: "Who Me?" <hitchhiker@dont.panic> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups Message-ID: <2JYXl.31646$yr3.6120@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com> > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > After all, very few users even know that filters are available, > let alone how to plonk someone. > Sadly, that is not my problem. It IS all about *ME*, isn't it ??? ;-) done ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:56:18 +0000 (UTC) From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups Message-ID: <h0pdmi$1mpe$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> In article <QtTXl.20146$D32.3222@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>, Who Me? <hitchhiker@dont.panic> wrote: >Ah, but my point is that any filtering _you_ do doesn't affect most >Usenet readers (unless you're running an NNTP server), Most reputable transit server operators run some sort of anti-spam software. Nobody wants their resources to be wasted transporting spam. Current anti-spam software is reasonably effective, although not as effective as anti-spam software for email (which invests much more CPU power into each message than most Usenet transit servers are able to). Most of the newsgroups I read see very little automated spam; I don't think there's enough CPU power available anywhere to reliably distinguish human-injected spam (which, in the newsgroups where I see it the most, is difficult to distinguish from legitimate content). >so other Usenet users must judge posts by other means. Flagging a >particular server or site isn't going to make a difference beyond >_your_ environment. Some transit servers will drop articles which have passed through known spam havens. I haven't heard of anyone completely blacklisting Google Groups, but I wouldn't be surprised. >Using filters at end-points isn't a viable solution, because it >doesn't scale and requires training for all users. They need training anyway. Many people are cheering the demise of ISP-provided news servers, for precisely that reason -- which just leaves Google Groups as the primary source of clueless lusers. (Unfortunately, losing GG would be a two-edged sword, because many more people benefit from having access to the archive Google acquired with DejaNews than benefit from not seeing posts from clueless GG users.) -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:45:06 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups Message-ID: <b2c67dd2-9a84-4580-ad01-877d0b16f62e@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> On Jun 11, 9:27am, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote: >-- which just > leaves Google Groups as the primary source of clueless lusers. What makes you say Google Groups is such a problem? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:24:04 -0500 From: "Who Me?" <hitchhiker@dont.panic> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups Message-ID: <1JYXl.31645$yr3.106@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com> Who Me? wrote: > Spam prevention is always going to be an arms race: Not on Usenet, or at least it shouldn't be........and that was exactly my point. If the various SysAdm's would still require that ALL their users be "known" to them with some kind of verifiable identity information, then legitimate sites would NOT have any spammers posting. AND If spam friendly sites lost all their peers, Usenet spam would largely be non-existent. Problem IS that there are too many "big guys" in the game now that don't really give a crap about spam and the like........like but not limited to Google.......to make ANY solution effective. The cows are out of the barn AND the barn has burned. It is too late to go back now. This too, like all good things, will come to an end, hastened by the idiots of the world. ***** Moderator's Note ***** If the "big guys" don't care about spam, it's because biger routers and fatter pipes are cheaper than the cost of controlling it. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 2009 14:15:11 -0400 From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <h0rhjf$8qk$1@panix2.panix.com> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Jun 8, 8:49am, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote: >> As we all know, it >> costs more to process a dial pulse than a DTMF call origination. > >Pulse costs them more than Touch Tone? Why? It takes longer. It's holding the line up... and you can't bill the use of the line until the call supervision kicks in. So you have equipment and lines tied up for something you can't bill. The thing is... you can charge the customer for touch tone. If you tried to charge the customer for pulse service, most of them wouldn't pay for it and then THOSE revenues would be lost. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:23:56 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID Message-ID: <35826016-93e5-4732-93e6-ef465309857c@z20g2000prh.googlegroups.com> On Jun 11, 3:43pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: > It takes longer. It's holding the line up... and you can't bill the use > of the line until the call supervision kicks in. So you have equipment > and lines tied up for something you can't bill. The revenue loss from this must be inconsequential. Here's why: First, it would only apply to toll colls where there is a usage charge, not local calls. Second, toll charges today are very low, and many subscribers pay a flat rate. Third, the _additional_ "non revenue" time required by dialing vs. keying would just be a few seconds and tiny part of the overall connect time (more time is wasted by waiting for the called party to answer). Fourth, toll lines are not occupied until the subscriber finishes dialing. In the terms above--wasteful occupancy of equipment--requiring ten digit dialing for all calls is far more wasteful. That is, if the desire is to reduce equipment occupancy, then ten digit dialing ought to be eliminated. In a great many cases it was unnecessary and only introduced as a matter of _social policy,_ not technical need, so as to make it easier for newcomer companies to come in. Many newcomers soaked up exchange codes at an enormous rate, tieing up a block of 10,000 numbers for a tiny volume of subscribers. This soak-up created an explosion of new exchange codes which resulted in the need for more NPAs and overlays. To be "fair", they make EVERYBODY dial ten digits, not just people calling the newcomers (or special lines such as cell phones or faxes). Further, the requirement of ten digits introduces more chance of subscriber error which means wasted use of equipment and subscriber annoyance from wrong numbers. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:25:17 -0500 From: "George S Thurman" <gsthurman@aol.com (nospam)> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: (TELECOM) HELP ...WHO IS PROVIDING THIS TOLL-FREE NUMBER Message-ID: <1DeYl.28560$c45.8356@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> I am trying to help someone figure out who the carrier is on an inbound 800 number. He wants to change the location to where the calls are sent, but can not remember who the carrier is on the number, and has not received a bill for the service in months, even though the service continues to work. Any ideas on how to identify the carrier on an inbound toll-free number? George "Skipper" Thurman ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:17:31 GMT From: "Gary" <fake-email-address@bogus.hotmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups Message-ID: <L0iYl.591$P5.421@nwrddc02.gnilink.net> "John Mayson" <john@mayson.us> wrote in message news:6645152a0906101234v6d65271pd05488eaac666b5d@mail.gmail.com... > > I really hope USENET isn't dying. My first taste of the Internet was > via USENET in 1987 and I've been hooked every since. It isn't dying. It's dead. All of the groups I used to frequent have long lost quality, relevant discussions. Even this group, which still has some good discussions, is a pale shadow of it's past glory. It is very rare that we'll see a discussion of current issues or technology here; when many years ago it was the norm. This group used to get well over 200 messages a day. All of the other comp.* groups that I used to read have gone silent, except for the occasional spam. If you want further proof, ask anyone under the age of 30 if they know about Usenet. Chances are you'll have better luck playing Powerball... As to why I'm still here? Good question. Mostly because I'm stubborn and I general don't like web interfaces for forums. I haven't found any web based forums that provide anywhere near SNR that used to exist in the good USENET forums. So, I stick around Usenet mostly out of habit. -Gary ------------------------------ 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 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. The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. Contact information: Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 781-784-7287 bill at horne dot net Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom 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) 2008 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. End of The Telecom digest (9 messages) ******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues