29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for April 13, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 95 : "text" Format
====== 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
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: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 02:03:07 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: After Breach, Companies Warn of E-Mail Fraud
Message-ID: <iJKdndeKVfHWiDnQnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@giganews.com>
www.Queensbridge.us wrote:
> On Apr 9, 4:45 pm, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> Walgreens' Email to customers says: "On March 30th, we were informed
> by Epsilon, a company we use to send emails to our customers, that
> files containing the email addresses of some Walgreens customers were
> accessed without authorization."
>
> At 1-855-814-0010 Walgreens says that breach really occurred March
> 31. How could they have been informed about it BEFORE it happened?
> What took them so long to inform customers?
>
Since this thread started, I have received several of these emails.
Apparently, it is a scam.
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 02:07:05 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: After Breach, Companies Warn of E-Mail Fraud
Message-ID: <tI-dnfRBoq-niznQnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Pete Cresswell wrote:
> Per Sam Spade:
>
>>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.
>
>
> Rule #2: Never, ever give out your "real" email address to
> anybody in any kind of business. Not your lawyer, not your
> financial advisor.... Nobody who will be entering it into a DB
> other than their personal mail client.
>
Some of us can't do that. I have my own domain so it is easy enough to
change it if I have to. Then, I would just be giving out the new email
to the same entities.
My wife uses her email very carefully to a small group of social
contacts. Yet, she gets some spam.
I have a couple of very seldom used email accounts at my broadband ISP.
They are used only for a rare joke email to a friend. They sit there
for months without activity other than the occasional promotional email
from the ISP.
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:52:32 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: How To Unlock Your iPhone For Any Carrier Without Jailbreaking
Message-ID: <BANLkTinX9qF7Op-_2Q2mrU8nSZN0Ra32Wg@mail.gmail.com>
"A new service claims it can unlock your iPhone 4 to run on any
carrier without jailbreaking your device.
"It works by adjusting your phone's IMEI to work on any carrier. An
IMEI is a number unique to every GSM phone that allows your carrier to
identify your device."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-unlock-your-iphone-2011-4
Any thoughts about what exactly they mean by "adjusting" the IMEI?
Spoofing perhaps?
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:30:40 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Islamic Mobile Service from SalamFone
Message-ID: <45mdnWtmRNzNJD7QnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <BANLkTim4vPLRA1MgOXGJBLNXKoRr0QszDA@mail.gmail.com>,
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>Interesting...
>
>Salamfone Sdn Bhd, a subsidiary of Kuwait's Reach Telecom has launched
>the first ever Shariah Compliant mobile service in the world ...
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
>I don't usually run PR notices like this (Sorry, John), but I'm making
>an exception because I'm curious what the readers think about this
>kind of marketing pitch.
As it apparently involves sending SMS messages and calls to the phone
at random times, it should discourage the use of those phones as detonators
for the not-so-smart bombs wearing clothing by duPont.
This sounds like a good thing to me. grin
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:42:58 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones?
Message-ID: <CaqdnY6ndpyvIT7QnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <pan.2011.04.11.22.29.51.300337@myrealbox.com>,
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:39:32 -0700, AES wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2011.04.11.05.35.40.152944@myrealbox.com>,
>> David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> So, the fiber cables for FTTH could certainly contain a copper pair
>>> >> or two to deliver low-power AC or DC all the way to the premises end.
>>> >> Wouldn't significantly increase the size or flexibility of the cable,
>>> >> I'd guess. Would add noticeably to the cost of the cable, however,
>>> >> along with the cost of spllcing or connectorizing the cables -- and
>>> >> somebody would have to be responsible for supplying the power.
>>
>>
>>> And fibre doesn't propagate massive spikes from induced lightening
>>> strikes into your equipment the way metal conductors do.
>>
>> A valid point. Lightning problems are rare here in the SF Bay Area, but I
>> understand are a serious issue in many other locations.
>
>Most people still don't understand that a lightening strike hitting the
>ground in their vicinity can cause a massive spike in their metal phone
>lines - which essentially act as massive antennas - which end up affecting
>whatever is connected at either end. This can occur many miles away from
>people but it can still affect them.
>
>The Telcos have significant line protection to keep these nasties out of
>their expensive electronic equipment, how many end-users have similar
>protection at their ends?
In the U.S., with POTS service, virtually all end-users have basic
protection against such 'at the DEMMARC', provided by the telco.
There are multiple reasons for the telco providing it. For starters:
1) given a strike on telco wiring, with a surge following the telco
wiring into the property, and possibly injuring someone inside, the
telco does have legal liability.
2) if there is a strike on the end-user property, the telco doesn't want
that surge 'backing up' into the telco system, and blowing out lots
of other customer pairs.
>
>People still complain about their ISP after storms in their area or
>bellyache about their "crap" ADSL modems which - coincidently - seems to
>either fail or degrade in performance after these self-same storms.
The only weather-related DSL problems I've known of were where a multi-
pair distribution cable had a moisture problem. After a hard rain some
water would get into the cable, and cross-talk issues would go way up.
wait a few days, the damp spot dried out and things were back to normal.
Well, until the next rain.
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 03:30:17 +0000 (UTC)
From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Does FiOS support rotary phones?
Message-ID: <io0h09$a7c$1@pcls6.std.com>
David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> writes:
>Most people still don't understand that a lightening strike hitting the
>ground in their vicinity can cause a massive spike in their metal phone
>lines - which essentially act as massive antennas - which end up affecting
>whatever is connected at either end. This can occur many miles away from
>people but it can still affect them.
I was always rather aware of that. As a kid, we had a summer cottage
whose phone was on a 2 party party line. The ringer was connected between
one of the two leads and the ground stake, not between the two leads.
Whenever a thunderstorm was nearby the phone would ring, usually just a
'ding' in synch with a lightning stroke. (actually the phone would tend
to ring more after the storm passed over us and was to the east) We'd
joke, "Mr. Lightning calling, don't answer it!"
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 07:50:42 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Optus makes customers pay to fix its blackspots
Message-ID: <siegman-1A8757.07504212042011@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>
Telecom Digest Moderator said:
> If Mr. Siegman feels that his corner of the universe should not expect
> others to pay extra to serve it, that's his choice to make.
>
> It may well be that those in similar circumstances will make the same
> choice: considering the cost to purchase a new phone, setup fees,
> early termination fees, etc., paying for a femtocell and pro-rata
> Internet connectivity may even be a less expensive option.
Actually, I'm not as motivated by social do-gooding in this case as my
original post might have implied.
There is a little corner of the campus here, hemmed in by some hills,
that's a dead zone (aka "blackspot") for all the local cell carriers,
but still has very good Comcast cable connectivity.
As an engineer, I like to see problems solved at minimal cost and
maximum efficiency. In this particular case, putting femtocells into
the 3 or 4 residences in this blackspot is likely to be not only cheaper
and more efficient than adding a new multi-vendor tower, but probably
even better service-wise. Maybe I could try to force Verizon (or Optus)
to pay for this femtocell, but at $200 I'd prefer to "just do it" myself
and get on with my life. (Incidentally, I then own -- and can
potentially re-sell -- the femtocell; and there's zero "pro rata" cost
for the Internet connectivity, since it's a fixed-rate service.)
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.
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.
End of The Telecom Digest (7 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues