From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

(Landline)
After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say the
same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or rather "0
double 0" as the voice says).
If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on my
provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown number;
sorry, this call cannot me ..."
So, if I can detect such a call as a spam one by this means, my provider
could too, an block them; however, there is no incentive on them to do so.
In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their number -
I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do, presumably to stop
people noting it an pestering them - then 1471 would say "the caller
withheld their number", rather than give a faked one.
Of course, if such calls _were_ blocked, the scammers would find another
way, but still ...
And yes, I know landlines will end soon, but presumably the same
services - 1471 and blocking - will be (are?) offered via VoIP.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 19/10/2025 11:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say the
same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or rather "0
double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on my
provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown number;
sorry, this call cannot me ..."

So, if I can detect such a call as a spam one by this means, my provider could too, an block them; however, there is no incentive on them to do so.

In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their number -
I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do, presumably to stop
people noting it an pestering them - then 1471 would say "the caller
withheld their number", rather than give a faked one.

Of course, if such calls _were_ blocked, the scammers would find another
way, but still ...

And yes, I know landlines will end soon, but presumably the same
services - 1471 and blocking - will be (are?) offered via VoIP.

That is not my, nor I think most peoples experience. They already have a couple of work arounds. Generally on VOIP I see a forged real number,
the last one was 01775366021. If I look this up on
https://who-called.co.uk/ I can see:-

"Phone number 01775366021 is most commonly reported as a Energy Scam,
this number has Negative community rating, with 734 lookups and 16 user comments."

but the clincher is :-

"Number is new and active for 3 days (since 16 October 2025)."

so they are rotating the landline CLI numbers they use, so blocking them
on my phone is just a game of "wack a mole"

The other trick is to forge a mobile CLI. These are harder to block as
Mobiles can roam abroad, and use VOIP. Some one was using mine for a
while, so got a few angry voice mails till I changed the recording.

Dave


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 19/10/2025 11:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

So, if I can detect such a call as a spam one by this means, my provider could too, an block them; however, there is no incentive on them to do so.

In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their number -
I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do, presumably to stop
people noting it an pestering them - then 1471 would say "the caller
withheld their number", rather than give a faked one.

Many big firms as well as hospitals withhold DDI numbers or map them to
a central switchboard number.

<y criterion for rejection is to connect and wait. If the other end says
'Is that Mr [natural philosophers heal name] ? I accept the call, if it
says 'hello I am calling from' I reject it.

Of course, if such calls_were_ blocked, the scammers would find another
way, but still ...

And yes, I know landlines will end soon, but presumably the same
services - 1471 and blocking - will be (are?) offered via VoIP.

It will get even worse, probably . I now get scammy whatsapp messages...
--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
..I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 12:17:49 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/10/2025 11:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

So, if I can detect such a call as a spam one by this means, my
provider could too, an block them; however, there is no incentive
on them to do so.

In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their
number - I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do,
presumably to stop people noting it an pestering them - then 1471
would say "the caller withheld their number", rather than give a
faked one.

Many big firms as well as hospitals withhold DDI numbers or map them
to a central switchboard number.

<y criterion for rejection is to connect and wait. If the other end
says 'Is that Mr [natural philosophers heal name] ? I accept the
call, if it says 'hello I am calling from' I reject it.

Of course, if such calls_were_ blocked, the scammers would find
another way, but still ...

And yes, I know landlines will end soon, but presumably the same
services - 1471 and blocking - will be (are?) offered via VoIP.

It will get even worse, probably . I now get scammy whatsapp
messages...

My solution to that is simply to not subscribe to Whatsapp.
--
Davey.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 11:15:26 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say the
same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or rather "0
double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on my
provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown number;
sorry, this call cannot me ..."

So, if I can detect such a call as a spam one by this means, my provider >could too, an block them; however, there is no incentive on them to do so.

In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their number -
I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do, presumably to stop
people noting it an pestering them - then 1471 would say "the caller
withheld their number", rather than give a faked one.

Of course, if such calls _were_ blocked, the scammers would find another
way, but still ...

And yes, I know landlines will end soon, but presumably the same
services - 1471 and blocking - will be (are?) offered via VoIP.

There's no point in blocking scam numbers becuse they never use the
same one twice.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Sun 19/10/2025 11:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say the
same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or rather "0
double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on my
provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown number;
sorry, this call cannot me ..."

So, if I can detect such a call as a spam one by this means, my provider could too, an block them; however, there is no incentive on them to do so.

In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their number -
I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do, presumably to stop
people noting it an pestering them - then 1471 would say "the caller
withheld their number", rather than give a faked one.

Of course, if such calls _were_ blocked, the scammers would find another
way, but still ...

And yes, I know landlines will end soon, but presumably the same
services - 1471 and blocking - will be (are?) offered via VoIP.

For the record, the actual real number that the scammer uses is attached
to and travels with your call (albeit independently) to your serving
exchange. That exchange sees a withheld flag it does not present the
number but just sends 'withheld.' Emergency services etc have higher
level system access so can see your incoming call before it gets to your exchange and hence see the originating number.

When we are all on VoIP the mega processing centre located anywhere
where your number 'lives' there will have to be some other method of
stopping the number. Ergo it means Emergency Services etc will have to
have a level of access that maybe real scammers cannot touch, but how
long before the -12th floor of the Chinese Embassy cracks it?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 19/10/2025 13:41, Davey wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 12:17:49 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/10/2025 11:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

So, if I can detect such a call as a spam one by this means, my
provider could too, an block them; however, there is no incentive
on them to do so.

In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their
number - I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do,
presumably to stop people noting it an pestering them - then 1471
would say "the caller withheld their number", rather than give a
faked one.

Many big firms as well as hospitals withhold DDI numbers or map them
to a central switchboard number.

<y criterion for rejection is to connect and wait. If the other end
says 'Is that Mr [natural philosophers heal name] ? I accept the
call, if it says 'hello I am calling from' I reject it.

Of course, if such calls_were_ blocked, the scammers would find
another way, but still ...

And yes, I know landlines will end soon, but presumably the same
services - 1471 and blocking - will be (are?) offered via VoIP.

It will get even worse, probably . I now get scammy whatsapp
messages...

My solution to that is simply to not subscribe to Whatsapp.

Sadly all of my family and most of my friends are on it. Not to mention tradesmen...:-(
--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 19/10/2025 15:17, Peter Johnson wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 11:15:26 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say the
same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or rather "0
double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on my
provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown number;
sorry, this call cannot me ..."

So, if I can detect such a call as a spam one by this means, my provider
could too, an block them; however, there is no incentive on them to do so. >>
In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their number -
I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do, presumably to stop
people noting it an pestering them - then 1471 would say "the caller
withheld their number", rather than give a faked one.

Of course, if such calls _were_ blocked, the scammers would find another
way, but still ...

And yes, I know landlines will end soon, but presumably the same
services - 1471 and blocking - will be (are?) offered via VoIP.

There's no point in blocking scam numbers becuse they never use the
same one twice.

Oh they often do...
--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first centuryrCOs developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 2025/10/19 11:45:11, David Wade wrote:

On 19/10/2025 11:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say the
same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or rather "0
double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on my
provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown number;
sorry, this call cannot me ..."

[]

That is not my, nor I think most peoples experience. They already have a

Really? I think for weeks _every_ dodgy call (either ones pretending to
be the insulation authority, or some such body, presumably trying to
sell insulation, or out-and-out phishers, such as we-ve-just-arrested-someboy-using-your-credit-card or [heavily accented]
"this is bank security") have been of this nature: 1471 shows a number,
1572-1 says it's unknown. I'm talking about calls coming in on a real old-fashioned landline - up to three or four a day, but sometimes maybe
a week or more without any.

I've had genuine calls from local window companies - I don't really mind
those, as they're honest about what they're calling about, and usually
desist when I say I'm not interested. It's the lying or phishing ones
that match the above faked-and-unknown combination.


[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

By the very definition of "news," we hear very little about the dominant threats to our lives, and the most about the rarest, including terror. "LibertyMcG" alias Brian P. McGlinchey, 2013-7-23
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 2025/10/19 13:41:22, Davey wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 12:17:49 +0100

[]

<y criterion for rejection is to connect and wait. If the other end
says 'Is that Mr [natural philosophers heal name] ? I accept the
call, if it says 'hello I am calling from' I reject it.

I do the same - and usually, after about 3 or 4 seconds of me not saying anything, rather than them saying anything, they usually disconnect.
Doesn't seem to make any difference whether I have the TV on audibly or
not. (Real human callers usually say "hello?" or similar after a second
or few.) And these ones (the ones that hang up) are always the faked-and-unknown combination.

[]

It will get even worse, probably . I now get scammy whatsapp
messages...

My solution to that is simply to not subscribe to Whatsapp.

Mine too. I'm not even sure what whatsApp _is_ - certainly, I've not
found I have any need for it. (Yes, you can ask how I know that if I
don't know what it is. I don't have an answer to that.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

aibohphobia, n., The fear of palindromes.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 2025/10/19 20:3:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/10/2025 15:17, Peter Johnson wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 11:15:26 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say the
same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or rather "0
double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on my
provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown number;
sorry, this call cannot me ..."

[]

There's no point in blocking scam numbers becuse they never use the
same one twice.

My point wasn't that I can't block them, but that there is clearly a
technical way of _detecting_ them: if _I_ can dial 1471 and get a
number, then dial 1572-1 and get "unknown", then surely such calls could
be _automatically_ detected and prevented from reaching me. But as I
said, there's no incentive to look into this.

Oh they often do...

Interesting. I too would have assumed they didn't re-use them. So if I
_could_ block them, that would actually be worth doing. (Doesn't cancel
my point that calls exhibiting this characteristic should be
_automatically_ blocked though.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 20/10/2025 00:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/19 20:3:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/10/2025 15:17, Peter Johnson wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 11:15:26 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say the
same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or rather "0
double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on my
provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown number;
sorry, this call cannot me ..."

[]

There's no point in blocking scam numbers becuse they never use the
same one twice.

My point wasn't that I can't block them, but that there is clearly a technical way of _detecting_ them: if _I_ can dial 1471 and get a
number, then dial 1572-1 and get "unknown", then surely such calls could
be _automatically_ detected and prevented from reaching me. But as I
said, there's no incentive to look into this.

Thats very odd and shouldn't happen. Have you asked on the BT Community?

https://community.bt.com/

why this happens.

Oh they often do...

Interesting. I too would have assumed they didn't re-use them. So if I _could_ block them, that would actually be worth doing. (Doesn't cancel
my point that calls exhibiting this characteristic should be
_automatically_ blocked though.)

I have VOIP and just exported the call list from my Fritz!box and sorted
it by number in Excel. I couldn't see any duplicates..

Dave
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 09:41:30 +0100
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:

On 20/10/2025 00:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/19 20:3:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/10/2025 15:17, Peter Johnson wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 11:15:26 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say
the same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or
rather "0 double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on
my provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown
number; sorry, this call cannot me ..."

[]

There's no point in blocking scam numbers becuse they never use
the same one twice.

My point wasn't that I can't block them, but that there is clearly a technical way of _detecting_ them: if _I_ can dial 1471 and get a
number, then dial 1572-1 and get "unknown", then surely such calls
could be _automatically_ detected and prevented from reaching me.
But as I said, there's no incentive to look into this.

Thats very odd and shouldn't happen. Have you asked on the BT
Community?

https://community.bt.com/

why this happens.

Oh they often do...

Interesting. I too would have assumed they didn't re-use them. So
if I _could_ block them, that would actually be worth doing.
(Doesn't cancel my point that calls exhibiting this characteristic
should be _automatically_ blocked though.)

I have VOIP and just exported the call list from my Fritz!box and
sorted it by number in Excel. I couldn't see any duplicates..

Dave

I have also seen repeats. Currently there is a spate of calls that
WhoCalledMe says come from the same place, all trying to sell insurance
or something. I just let the answering machine take them, they just
ring off when there is no actual person answering. The numbers they say
they call from are all very similar.
--
Davey.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 2025/10/20 9:41:30, David Wade wrote:

On 20/10/2025 00:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

[]

My point wasn't that I can't block them, but that there is clearly a
technical way of _detecting_ them: if _I_ can dial 1471 and get a
number, then dial 1572-1 and get "unknown", then surely such calls could
be _automatically_ detected and prevented from reaching me. But as I
said, there's no incentive to look into this.

Thats very odd and shouldn't happen. Have you asked on the BT Community?

https://community.bt.com/

why this happens.

Well, it has been happening for years - I think ever since I turned on
the "add last call to the blocked list" feature (which I think I did as
soon as I became aware of it; I don't think it cost me anything).

[]

I have VOIP and just exported the call list from my Fritz!box and sorted
it by number in Excel. I couldn't see any duplicates..

Dave

I'm talking about an ordinary old-fashioned landline, on which I can
dial 1471 to see (well, hear) the _apparent_ last number who called [I
think that's universal across all providers], and then 1572 option 1 to
block the last number that called [I don't know if that's universal or provider-specific].

I'm pretty certain I have _no_ numbers in my blocked list. (I expect it
_would_ work with a real caller, but fortunately I don't know any
individuals - or genuine companies - whose calls I want to block.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

WhatrCOs the point of having laurels if you canrCOt rest on them?
- Tom Lehrer
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 20/10/2025 10:27, Davey wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 09:41:30 +0100
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:

On 20/10/2025 00:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/19 20:3:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/10/2025 15:17, Peter Johnson wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 11:15:26 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say
the same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or
rather "0 double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on
my provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown
number; sorry, this call cannot me ..."

[]

There's no point in blocking scam numbers becuse they never use
the same one twice.

My point wasn't that I can't block them, but that there is clearly a
technical way of _detecting_ them: if _I_ can dial 1471 and get a
number, then dial 1572-1 and get "unknown", then surely such calls
could be _automatically_ detected and prevented from reaching me.
But as I said, there's no incentive to look into this.

Thats very odd and shouldn't happen. Have you asked on the BT
Community?

https://community.bt.com/

why this happens.

Oh they often do...

Interesting. I too would have assumed they didn't re-use them. So
if I _could_ block them, that would actually be worth doing.
(Doesn't cancel my point that calls exhibiting this characteristic
should be _automatically_ blocked though.)

I have VOIP and just exported the call list from my Fritz!box and
sorted it by number in Excel. I couldn't see any duplicates..

Dave

I have also seen repeats. Currently there is a spate of calls that WhoCalledMe says come from the same place, all trying to sell insurance
or something. I just let the answering machine take them, they just
ring off when there is no actual person answering. The numbers they say
they call from are all very similar.

Yes, there are similar numbers, but not the same.

Dave

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 19/10/2025 13:41, Davey wrote:

My solution to that is simply to not subscribe to Whatsapp.

Some friends use that and keep trying to persuade me to use it because
they can send messages to each other - I manage that fine with EMail!




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 19/10/2025 11:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say the
same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or rather "0
double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on my
provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown number;
sorry, this call cannot me ..."

So, if I can detect such a call as a spam one by this means, my provider could too, an block them; however, there is no incentive on them to do so.

In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their number -
I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do, presumably to stop
people noting it an pestering them - then 1471 would say "the caller
withheld their number", rather than give a faked one.

Of course, if such calls _were_ blocked, the scammers would find another
way, but still ...

And yes, I know landlines will end soon, but presumably the same
services - 1471 and blocking - will be (are?) offered via VoIP.

I'm surprised that no-one in this entire thread has mentioned call
blockers. I have had a trueCall unit for a number of years, and it gets
rid of most of the junk and scam calls. I've set it so that, for any
number it doesn't recognise, it asks the caller to identify themselves
before ringing my phone. Most unwanted callers simply hang up at this
point, and I don't know about the call unless I look at the call log.
Genuine callers will say "Joe Bloggs" or whatever their name is.
TrueCall then rings the phone and says "You have a call from Joe Bloggs"
and gives me the option to accept or reject the call or to switch it to voicemail. Simples!
When my landline ultimately disappears and I have no "landline" option
other than VoIP, the trueCall unit will be connected to that instead.
--
Cheers,
Roger
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

Not directly related but You and Yours had a long item on a new scam.
people who have bought things online from dodgy (i.e. Chinese) are
finding that their contact details (name, address, phone number, EMail)
are being used by the dodgy companies so they start getting lots of
calls from people wanting to return goods or the returned items arriving
at their address.

Some have had so many calls that they cannot use their voicemail.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002l36z


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:

On 19/10/2025 11:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say the
same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or rather "0
double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on my
provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown number;
sorry, this call cannot me ..."

So, if I can detect such a call as a spam one by this means, my provider
could too, an block them; however, there is no incentive on them to do so. >>
In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their number -
I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do, presumably to stop
people noting it an pestering them - then 1471 would say "the caller
withheld their number", rather than give a faked one.

Of course, if such calls _were_ blocked, the scammers would find another
way, but still ...

And yes, I know landlines will end soon, but presumably the same
services - 1471 and blocking - will be (are?) offered via VoIP.

I'm surprised that no-one in this entire thread has mentioned call
blockers. I have had a trueCall unit for a number of years, and it gets
rid of most of the junk and scam calls. I've set it so that, for any
number it doesn't recognise, it asks the caller to identify themselves before ringing my phone. Most unwanted callers simply hang up at this
point, and I don't know about the call unless I look at the call log. Genuine callers will say "Joe Bloggs" or whatever their name is.
TrueCall then rings the phone and says "You have a call from Joe Bloggs"
and gives me the option to accept or reject the call or to switch it to voicemail. Simples!
When my landline ultimately disappears and I have no "landline" option
other than VoIP, the trueCall unit will be connected to that instead.

I use two methods to deal with scam calls.

When we went to FTTP, for -u1:20pm I ported my LL number to Andrews &
Arnold, selecting their rCLGo straight to voicemailrCY option. This emails me an MPEG of the voice call. I donrCOt use the A&A account for any other
service. In the last year werCOve had about 70 scam calls, two from friends, and one from the docrCOs.

On my iPhone I selected the rCySilence unknown callsrCO option, that goes straight to voicemail for callers not in my Contacts list, but doesnrCOt ring the phone. I get about five such calls a day, with only the occasional associated voicemail. They get deleted.
--
Spike
Sign the rCYNo to IDrCY petition here:
<https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194?v=2>
BlackBeltBarrister opinion here:
<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0BvfT2ed7X0&pp=ygUSSWQgY2FyZHMgYmxhY2tiZWx0> --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 20/10/2025 13:26, Roger Mills wrote:

On 19/10/2025 11:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say the
same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or rather "0
double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on my
provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown number;
sorry, this call cannot me ..."

So, if I can detect such a call as a spam one by this means, my provider
could too, an block them; however, there is no incentive on them to do
so.

In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their number -
I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do, presumably to stop
people noting it an pestering them - then 1471 would say "the caller
withheld their number", rather than give a faked one.

Of course, if such calls _were_ blocked, the scammers would find another
way, but still ...

And yes, I know landlines will end soon, but presumably the same
services - 1471 and blocking - will be (are?) offered via VoIP.

I'm surprised that no-one in this entire thread has mentioned call
blockers. I have had a trueCall unit for a number of years, and it gets
rid of most of the junk and scam calls. I've set it so that, for any
number it doesn't recognise, it asks the caller to identify themselves before ringing my phone. Most unwanted callers simply hang up at this
point, and I don't know about the call unless I look at the call log. Genuine callers will say "Joe Bloggs" or whatever their name is.
TrueCall then rings the phone and says "You have a call from Joe Bloggs"
and gives me the option to accept or reject the call or to switch it to voicemail. Simples!

My DECT announces who is calling. If I don't recognise it I just let it
go to the voicemail. Few leave a message

When my landline ultimately disappears and I have no "landline" option
other than VoIP, the trueCall unit will be connected to that instead.

should work..

dave


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> writes:

I'm surprised that no-one in this entire thread has mentioned call
blockers. I have had a trueCall unit for a number of years

I was going to mention Truecall because I have one and it works a
treat. But I thought probably everyone in here knows about it and has
chosen not to use it for some reason.

The underlying idea though is whitelisting. It's the only solution as
long as people are spoofing numbers.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 13:24:26 +0100
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

On 19/10/2025 13:41, Davey wrote:

My solution to that is simply to not subscribe to Whatsapp.

Some friends use that and keep trying to persuade me to use it
because they can send messages to each other - I manage that fine
with EMail!

Yup, works fine. And I don't participate in that 'walking down the
street with my whole attention on my mobile' thing.

--
Davey.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 20/10/2025 15:03, David Wade wrote:

On 20/10/2025 13:26, Roger Mills wrote:

When my landline ultimately disappears and I have no "landline" option
other than VoIP, the trueCall unit will be connected to that instead.

should work..

dave

It *does* work because I've already got an A&A VoIP account, and have
done a dummy run. There are one or minor wrinkles to be sorted out, but nothing insurmountable.
--
Cheers,
Roger
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 20:03:49 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/10/2025 15:17, Peter Johnson wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 11:15:26 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say the
same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or rather "0
double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on my
provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown number;
sorry, this call cannot me ..."

So, if I can detect such a call as a spam one by this means, my provider >>> could too, an block them; however, there is no incentive on them to do so. >>>
In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their number -
I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do, presumably to stop
people noting it an pestering them - then 1471 would say "the caller
withheld their number", rather than give a faked one.

Of course, if such calls _were_ blocked, the scammers would find another >>> way, but still ...

And yes, I know landlines will end soon, but presumably the same
services - 1471 and blocking - will be (are?) offered via VoIP.

There's no point in blocking scam numbers becuse they never use the
same one twice.

Oh they often do...

That's not been my experience.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 2025/10/20 15:36:29, Davey wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 13:24:26 +0100
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

On 19/10/2025 13:41, Davey wrote:

My solution to that is simply to not subscribe to Whatsapp.

Some friends use that and keep trying to persuade me to use it
because they can send messages to each other - I manage that fine
with EMail!

Exactly. I'm sure _some_ of these new methods of communicating _do_
offer something the ones I use don't, but those "pushing" them are Very
Bad at explaining what those advantages are.

Yup, works fine. And I don't participate in that 'walking down the
street with my whole attention on my mobile' thing.

I don't currently have one of those portable computers. They need
replacing too often, even if they _aren't_ stolen and don't get broken.
I _may_get one again sometime, but at present see no strong reason to do

--

Davey.

If you put a space after the two dashes - i. e. such that that line
consists of nothing but dash dash space newline - a lot of news and
email clients will recognise it as a .sig separator, and won't quote it
or what follows it.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 13:26:02 +0100
Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:

On 19/10/2025 11:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say the
same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or rather "0
double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on my provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown number;
sorry, this call cannot me ..."

So, if I can detect such a call as a spam one by this means, my
provider could too, an block them; however, there is no incentive
on them to do so.

In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their
number - I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do,
presumably to stop people noting it an pestering them - then 1471
would say "the caller withheld their number", rather than give a
faked one.

Of course, if such calls _were_ blocked, the scammers would find
another way, but still ...

And yes, I know landlines will end soon, but presumably the same
services - 1471 and blocking - will be (are?) offered via VoIP.

I'm surprised that no-one in this entire thread has mentioned call
blockers. I have had a trueCall unit for a number of years, and it
gets rid of most of the junk and scam calls. I've set it so that, for
any number it doesn't recognise, it asks the caller to identify
themselves before ringing my phone. Most unwanted callers simply hang
up at this point, and I don't know about the call unless I look at
the call log. Genuine callers will say "Joe Bloggs" or whatever their
name is. TrueCall then rings the phone and says "You have a call from
Joe Bloggs" and gives me the option to accept or reject the call or
to switch it to voicemail. Simples!
When my landline ultimately disappears and I have no "landline"
option other than VoIP, the trueCall unit will be connected to that
instead.

I am happy with just letting the answering machine on my DECT system
take any unrecognised calls. If somebody is willing to leave their
name, then they will likely leave a message. Those few people who
freeze when they are asked to leave a message will probably also freeze
when asked for their name. Not having a Truecall device means there is
one less piece of equipment to worry about.
--
Davey.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 17:28:54 +0100
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

--
Davey.

If you put a space after the two dashes - i. e. such that that line
consists of nothing but dash dash space newline - a lot of news and
email clients will recognise it as a .sig separator, and won't quote
it or what follows it.

Which is what I had intended to do. The one that got away.
--
Davey.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Sun 19/10/2025 23:49, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/10/19 13:41:22, Davey wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 12:17:49 +0100

[]

<y criterion for rejection is to connect and wait. If the other end
says 'Is that Mr [natural philosophers heal name] ? I accept the
call, if it says 'hello I am calling from' I reject it.

I do the same - and usually, after about 3 or 4 seconds of me not saying anything, rather than them saying anything, they usually disconnect.
Doesn't seem to make any difference whether I have the TV on audibly or
not. (Real human callers usually say "hello?" or similar after a second
or few.) And these ones (the ones that hang up) are always the faked-and-unknown combination.

[]

It will get even worse, probably . I now get scammy whatsapp
messages...

My solution to that is simply to not subscribe to Whatsapp.

Mine too. I'm not even sure what whatsApp _is_ - certainly, I've not
found I have any need for it. (Yes, you can ask how I know that if I
don't know what it is. I don't have an answer to that.)

If you restrict mail/calls to known users WA works perfectly well. I've
been on it since before the pandemic and have never once yet had a spam message.

I did receive a WA message last week however from an unknown that was presented and I had the option to reject it but - thankfully - did not.
The call was from someone at a NT property to say that my wedding ring
had been handed in - it fell off my finger the day after our Golden
Wedding anniversary a few days before. Knowing it well I was able to
identify it, and the NT sent it back to me signed-for delivery the next day.

The big advantage is WA-WA phone calls anywhere in the world - FREE!

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 2025/10/20 13:26:2, Roger Mills wrote:

On 19/10/2025 11:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say the
same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or rather "0
double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on my
provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown number;
sorry, this call cannot me ..."

So, if I can detect such a call as a spam one by this means, my provider
could too, an block them; however, there is no incentive on them to do so. >>
In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their number -
I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do, presumably to stop>> people noting it an pestering them - then 1471 would say "the caller
withheld their number", rather than give a faked one.

Of course, if such calls _were_ blocked, the scammers would find another
way, but still ...

And yes, I know landlines will end soon, but presumably the same
services - 1471 and blocking - will be (are?) offered via VoIP.

I'm surprised that no-one in this entire thread has mentioned call
blockers. I have had a trueCall unit for a number of years, and it gets

[]
Because the thread has degenerated (as they usually do) into discussions
of how various people deal with such calls. I started the thread by
pointing out a characteristic of such calls which could be used by the telecomm. companies as a way of detecting and blocking them
automatically, such that the subscribers wouldn't have to do _anything_.
I don't know what the difference is between the mechanism (for obtaining
the calling number) used by 1471 and that used by (in my case) 1572-1.
Does anyone here know what the difference is?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 2025/10/20 15:24:42, Richmond wrote:

Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> writes:

I'm surprised that no-one in this entire thread has mentioned call
blockers. I have had a trueCall unit for a number of years

I was going to mention Truecall because I have one and it works a
treat. But I thought probably everyone in here knows about it and has
chosen not to use it for some reason.

The underlying idea though is whitelisting. It's the only solution as
long as people are spoofing numbers.

No, not whitelisting: that (and most other mechanisms) would block calls
from a friend using an unknown number (if they'd just bought a new
mobile, say, or were calling from a hotel/friend's house/public 'phone/whatever.
I was pointing out one characteristic of such calls: that one mechanism
for divining the number calling produces a (spurious) result, but that
another such mechanism reports that the number is unknown.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 19/10/2025 11:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their number -
I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do, presumably to stop
people noting it an pestering them - then 1471 would say "the caller
withheld their number", rather than give a faked one.

I think the main reason that hospitals and doctors withhold the number
is to prevent someone else in the house recognising it as the doctor's
number and asking awkward questions - husband asks wife "why did the
doctor phone you?" (since he knows that *he* hasn't phoned the doctor so
it must be the wife who has done so).
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 20/10/2025 21:01, NY wrote:

On 19/10/2025 11:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their number -
I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do, presumably to stop
people noting it an pestering them - then 1471 would say "the caller
withheld their number", rather than give a faked one.

I think the main reason that hospitals and doctors withhold the number
is to prevent someone else in the house recognising it as the doctor's number and asking awkward questions - husband asks wife "why did the
doctor phone you?" (since he knows that *he* hasn't phoned the doctor so
it must be the wife who has done so).

I dont think so.

They just dont want to reveal DDI numbers so they dont get pestered
--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Mon 20/10/2025 21:01, NY wrote:

On 19/10/2025 11:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their number -
I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do, presumably to stop
people noting it an pestering them - then 1471 would say "the caller
withheld their number", rather than give a faked one.

I think the main reason that hospitals and doctors withhold the number
is to prevent someone else in the house recognising it as the doctor's number and asking awkward questions - husband asks wife "why did the
doctor phone you?" (since he knows that *he* hasn't phoned the doctor so
it must be the wife who has done so).

It's the dreaded plague that is GDPR.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 20/10/2025 21:01, NY wrote:

I think the main reason that hospitals and doctors withhold the number
is to prevent someone else in the house recognising it as the doctor's number and asking awkward questions - husband asks wife "why did the
doctor phone you?" (since he knows that *he* hasn't phoned the doctor so
it must be the wife who has done so).

I don't know if things have changed but all NHS Scotland calls used to
display the NHS Scotland number on Caller ID.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Mon 20/10/2025 22:27, JMB99 wrote:

On 20/10/2025 21:01, NY wrote:

I think the main reason that hospitals and doctors withhold the number
is to prevent someone else in the house recognising it as the doctor's
number and asking awkward questions - husband asks wife "why did the
doctor phone you?" (since he knows that *he* hasn't phoned the doctor
so it must be the wife who has done so).

I don't know if things have changed but all NHS Scotland calls used to display the NHS Scotland number on Caller ID.

So the recipient calls the number back and either gets NU or an operator
who hasn't a clue what the caller is on about.

Pah!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 21/10/2025 08:29, Woody wrote:

So the recipient calls the number back and either gets NU or an operator
who hasn't a clue what the caller is on about.

The recipient knows that NHS Scotland has tried to call and not just any
old junk caller. He could be expecting a call from the GP's surgery or hospital so probably knows who contact.

Before I retired I had my telephne line set to reject anonymous calls
because I was often on 24/7 call so particularly did not want junk
calls. I asked our call centre and they said it was no problem to them,
they had some places that similarly rejected anonymous calls so released
CLID on those calls and so set my number to the same.

It was funny during lockdown, I had a call from an unknown mobile number
and when I answered the caller had an American accent so I hung up. It
turned out the GP had a new American pharmacist and she had not had time
to get her mobile to go through the NHS system and display their number!


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 20/10/2025 17:40, Davey wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 13:26:02 +0100
Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:

On 19/10/2025 11:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say the
same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or rather "0
double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on my
provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown number;
sorry, this call cannot me ..."

So, if I can detect such a call as a spam one by this means, my
provider could too, an block them; however, there is no incentive
on them to do so.

In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their
number - I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do,
presumably to stop people noting it an pestering them - then 1471
would say "the caller withheld their number", rather than give a
faked one.

Of course, if such calls _were_ blocked, the scammers would find
another way, but still ...

And yes, I know landlines will end soon, but presumably the same
services - 1471 and blocking - will be (are?) offered via VoIP.

I'm surprised that no-one in this entire thread has mentioned call
blockers. I have had a trueCall unit for a number of years, and it
gets rid of most of the junk and scam calls. I've set it so that, for
any number it doesn't recognise, it asks the caller to identify
themselves before ringing my phone. Most unwanted callers simply hang
up at this point, and I don't know about the call unless I look at
the call log. Genuine callers will say "Joe Bloggs" or whatever their
name is. TrueCall then rings the phone and says "You have a call from
Joe Bloggs" and gives me the option to accept or reject the call or
to switch it to voicemail. Simples!
When my landline ultimately disappears and I have no "landline"
option other than VoIP, the trueCall unit will be connected to that
instead.

I am happy with just letting the answering machine on my DECT system
take any unrecognised calls.

How are you defining "unrecognised calls"?
--
Cheers,
Roger
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 14:39:11 +0100
Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:

On 20/10/2025 17:40, Davey wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 13:26:02 +0100
Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:

On 19/10/2025 11:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say
the same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or
rather "0 double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on my
provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown number;
sorry, this call cannot me ..."

So, if I can detect such a call as a spam one by this means, my
provider could too, an block them; however, there is no incentive
on them to do so.

In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their
number - I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do,
presumably to stop people noting it an pestering them - then 1471
would say "the caller withheld their number", rather than give a
faked one.

Of course, if such calls _were_ blocked, the scammers would find
another way, but still ...

And yes, I know landlines will end soon, but presumably the same
services - 1471 and blocking - will be (are?) offered via VoIP.

I'm surprised that no-one in this entire thread has mentioned call
blockers. I have had a trueCall unit for a number of years, and it
gets rid of most of the junk and scam calls. I've set it so that,
for any number it doesn't recognise, it asks the caller to identify
themselves before ringing my phone. Most unwanted callers simply
hang up at this point, and I don't know about the call unless I
look at the call log. Genuine callers will say "Joe Bloggs" or
whatever their name is. TrueCall then rings the phone and says
"You have a call from Joe Bloggs" and gives me the option to
accept or reject the call or to switch it to voicemail. Simples!
When my landline ultimately disappears and I have no "landline"
option other than VoIP, the trueCall unit will be connected to that
instead.

I am happy with just letting the answering machine on my DECT system
take any unrecognised calls.

How are you defining "unrecognised calls"?

Ones that are neither in the 'phone's memory, nor recognised by me.
--
Davey,

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 21/10/2025 14:39, Roger Mills wrote:

On 20/10/2025 17:40, Davey wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 13:26:02 +0100
Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:

On 19/10/2025 11:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

(Landline)

After a scam call, if I dial 1471, it tells me the number that
apparently called; I presume if I had a CLI 'phone, it would say the
same. (For ages now, it has started either 07 or 000 - or rather "0
double 0" as the voice says).

If I then select "block last caller" (which is 1572 option 1 on my
provider), it tells me "last answered call\from an unknown number;
sorry, this call cannot me ..."

So, if I can detect such a call as a spam one by this means, my
provider could too, an block them; however, there is no incentive
on them to do so.

In the case of those callers who "legitimately" withhold their
number - I have heard it said some hospitals and doctors do,
presumably to stop people noting it an pestering them - then 1471
would say "the caller withheld their number", rather than give a
faked one.

Of course, if such calls _were_ blocked, the scammers would find
another way, but still ...

And yes, I know landlines will end soon, but presumably the same
services - 1471 and blocking - will be (are?) offered via VoIP.

I'm surprised that no-one in this entire thread has mentioned call
blockers. I have had a trueCall unit for a number of years, and it
gets rid of most of the junk and scam calls. I've set it so that, for
any number it doesn't recognise, it asks the caller to identify
themselves before ringing my phone. Most unwanted callers simply hang
up at this point, and I don't know about the call unless I look at
the call log. Genuine callers will say "Joe Bloggs" or whatever their
name is. TrueCall then rings the phone and says "You have a call from
Joe Bloggs" and gives me the option to accept or reject the call or
to switch it to voicemail. Simples!
When my landline ultimately disappears and I have no "landline"
option other than VoIP, the trueCall unit will be connected to that
instead.

I am happy with just letting the answering machine on my DECT system
take any unrecognised calls.

How are you defining "unrecognised calls"?

For me, ones where the number is not in the phone book..

Dave
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 20:03:28 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

My solution to that is simply to not subscribe to Whatsapp.

Sadly all of my family and most of my friends are on it. Not to
mention tradesmen...:-(

I have heard the same about that other service owned by
uber grifter Zuckererg. Not using these services has not impacted
my use of the Internet.
--
The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with faith to
fight for it. - Aneurin Bevan
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 18:11:20 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

If you restrict mail/calls to known users WA works perfectly well. I've
been on it since before the pandemic and have never once yet had a spam message.

Apart from the odd interface, no threads, non standard
cut and paste. odd time stamping. All in all shit.

I did receive a WA message last week however from an unknown that was presented and I had the option to reject it but - thankfully - did not.
The call was from someone at a NT property to say that my wedding ring
had been handed in - it fell off my finger the day after our Golden
Wedding anniversary a few days before. Knowing it well I was able to identify it, and the NT sent it back to me signed-for delivery the next day.

The big advantage is WA-WA phone calls anywhere in the world - FREE!

Many systems have that feature and lest we forget, e-mail
is decades old and still worrking despite the efforts of
Microsoft and Google.

Signal is much better than whhatscrap.
--
The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with faith to
fight for it. - Aneurin Bevan
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 22/10/2025 07:30, Julian Macassey wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 20:03:28 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

My solution to that is simply to not subscribe to Whatsapp.

Sadly all of my family and most of my friends are on it. Not to
mention tradesmen...:-(

I have heard the same about that other service owned by
uber grifter Zuckererg. Not using these services has not impacted
my use of the Internet.

Unfortunately, they did, mine.

However running an ad blocker allows most of what I want without any
especial interference, and I have a google mail account that is never
used for normal email so it can get hacked to its hearts content as far
as I am concerned.

Using a commercial service without paying for it is a slight technical exercise, but worth it if it provides benefit.

If companies are stupid enough to pay e.g. google for products I never
see the adverts for and never buy, well thats fine with me.
--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 22/10/2025 07:39, Julian Macassey wrote:

Signal is much better than whhatscrap.

as long as the communicating parties use it...
--
"If you donrCOt read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 22/10/2025 08:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/10/2025 07:39, Julian Macassey wrote:

Signal is much better than whhatscrap.

as long as the communicating parties use it...

so true. Can't use Signal to order a take away from my local Nepalese Restaurant, book the accessible taxi, get my holiday home cleaned before
I arrive, or book a Terrace Table at my favourite eat-out place.

Even the guys who run the local Campaign for real ale pub crawls tell be
where they are up to on, yes you have guessed it, whatsapp.

WhatsAppp works for all these things, and a few more, but do these folks
have Signal, nope, so WhatsApp it is. Does not appear to generate Spam.
End to end encrypted.

.. I do feel sad we rely on such a closed app, but it could be worse,
they could all be apple fan boys and girls, and want to use Facetime....

Dave
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com> writes:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 18:11:20 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

If you restrict mail/calls to known users WA works perfectly
well. I've been on it since before the pandemic and have never once
yet had a spam message.

Apart from the odd interface, no threads, non standard cut and
paste. odd time stamping. All in all shit.

I did receive a WA message last week however from an unknown that was
presented and I had the option to reject it but - thankfully - did
not. The call was from someone at a NT property to say that my
wedding ring had been handed in - it fell off my finger the day after
our Golden Wedding anniversary a few days before. Knowing it well I
was able to identify it, and the NT sent it back to me signed-for
delivery the next day.

The big advantage is WA-WA phone calls anywhere in the world - FREE!

Many systems have that feature and lest we forget, e-mail is
decades old and still worrking despite the efforts of Microsoft and
Google.

Signal is much better than whhatscrap.

If you could have an unencrypted bridge between signal and whatsapp,
would you want it? It seems to me it would be better than having to
install whatsapp just to text people on whatsapp. If there were a clear
message that it is unencrypted, or that it is dodgy because of Meta's
track record of illegal spying. The advantage of email is everyone can
use their own provider. The current system for instant messaging is a
disaster.

There is always Deta Chat of course which can use email servers, but no
one will use that either.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:

On 22/10/2025 08:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/10/2025 07:39, Julian Macassey wrote:

Signal is much better than whhatscrap. as long as the communicating

parties use it...

so true. Can't use Signal to order a take away from my local Nepalese Restaurant, book the accessible taxi, get my holiday home cleaned
before I arrive, or book a Terrace Table at my favourite eat-out
place.

Even the guys who run the local Campaign for real ale pub crawls tell
be where they are up to on, yes you have guessed it, whatsapp.

WhatsAppp works for all these things, and a few more, but do these
folks have Signal, nope, so WhatsApp it is. Does not appear to
generate Spam. End to end encrypted.

.. I do feel sad we rely on such a closed app, but it could be worse,
they could all be apple fan boys and girls, and want to use
Facetime....

Dave

But do you trust it? Do you want spyware on your phone?

https://localmess.github.io/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 22/10/2025 10:36, Richmond wrote:

David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:

On 22/10/2025 08:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/10/2025 07:39, Julian Macassey wrote:

Signal is much better than whhatscrap. as long as the communicating

parties use it...

so true. Can't use Signal to order a take away from my local Nepalese
Restaurant, book the accessible taxi, get my holiday home cleaned
before I arrive, or book a Terrace Table at my favourite eat-out
place.

Even the guys who run the local Campaign for real ale pub crawls tell
be where they are up to on, yes you have guessed it, whatsapp.

WhatsAppp works for all these things, and a few more, but do these
folks have Signal, nope, so WhatsApp it is. Does not appear to
generate Spam. End to end encrypted.

.. I do feel sad we rely on such a closed app, but it could be worse,
they could all be apple fan boys and girls, and want to use
Facetime....

Dave

But do you trust it? Do you want spyware on your phone?

https://localmess.github.io/

Well all the info I can find says that for some reason WhatsApp does not indulge in this behaviour, but of course other apps do. It does not seem
very effective, Facebook and Google continue to send me ads for things I bought last week, or events that were yesterday.

.. for example if I turn the add blocker off and look at my local Sam
Smiths pub on the CAMRA WEB site..

https://camra.org.uk/pubs/malt-shovels-altrincham-130059

.. I see an advert for an investment platform ...

https://go.etoro.com/

.. if I had money to spend, would I really be going to a Sam Smiths pub?

going up market to the nearby

https://camra.org.uk/pubs/lane7-altrincham-198041

I get sent to site trying to flog me olive oil for drinking...

https://foodhealthsecrets.com/

.. really!

... and if any one wants to know my curry order from

https://www.buddhahousenepaleserestaurant.com/

It possibly was..

1 x Chicken Korma
1 x Vegetable Biryani with Hot Sauce.
3 x pilau Rice
3 x Garlic Naan
3 x Onion Bhaji
1 x Garlic Chilli Chicken

.. but if you want to copy it, just watch the Garlic Chicken is very hot...

Dave

.. and of course always remember, even if your are not paranoid they are
still out to get you...


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 22/10/2025 08:54, David Wade wrote:

On 22/10/2025 08:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/10/2025 07:39, Julian Macassey wrote:

Signal is much better than whhatscrap.

as long as the communicating parties use it...

so true. Can't use Signal to order a take away from my local Nepalese Restaurant, book the accessible taxi, get my holiday home cleaned before
I arrive, or book a Terrace Table at my favourite eat-out place.

Even the guys who run the local Campaign for real ale pub crawls tell be where they are up to on, yes you have guessed it, whatsapp.

WhatsAppp works for all these things, and a few more, but do these folks have Signal, nope, so WhatsApp it is. Does not appear to generate Spam.
End to end encrypted.

.. I do feel sad we rely on such a closed app, but it could be worse,
they could all be apple fan boys and girls, and want to use Facetime....

*makes sign of cross and reaches for garlic* :-)

The art of 'free' software is to get it to do what you want without it
costing you money indirectly or being such an arse to use you throw the
whole phone in the dustbin

Dave

--
I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you
can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if
you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed
whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it.

Sir Roger Scruton

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 22/10/2025 10:36, Richmond wrote:

David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:

On 22/10/2025 08:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/10/2025 07:39, Julian Macassey wrote:

Signal is much better than whhatscrap. as long as the communicating

parties use it...

so true. Can't use Signal to order a take away from my local Nepalese
Restaurant, book the accessible taxi, get my holiday home cleaned
before I arrive, or book a Terrace Table at my favourite eat-out
place.

Even the guys who run the local Campaign for real ale pub crawls tell
be where they are up to on, yes you have guessed it, whatsapp.

WhatsAppp works for all these things, and a few more, but do these
folks have Signal, nope, so WhatsApp it is. Does not appear to
generate Spam. End to end encrypted.

.. I do feel sad we rely on such a closed app, but it could be worse,
they could all be apple fan boys and girls, and want to use
Facetime....

Dave

But do you trust it? Do you want spyware on your phone?

Frankly my dear, I don;t give a damn.
If I had anything secret to say I would be using Moscow Rules ;-)

https://localmess.github.io/

--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 22/10/2025 10:15, Richmond wrote:

It seems to me it would be better than having to
install whatsapp just to text people on whatsapp. If there were a clear message that it is unencrypted, or that it is dodgy because of Meta's
track record of illegal spying. The advantage of email is everyone can
use their own provider. The current system for instant messaging is a disaster.

Look. Whatever WhatsCrap says, one assumes it is at some level insecure.
The moral is don't use it for booking sessions with the dominatrix if
you are a public persona.

I assume that both my laptop and mobile phone will inevitably at some
point get lost or stolen, They have my email passwords on.

I can easily change those.

Just don't use consumer grade junk for state secrets...
--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Fr|-d|-ric Bastiat

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 20/10/2025 18:27, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

I was pointing out one characteristic of such calls: that one mechanism
for divining the number calling produces a (spurious) result, but that

I don't think it is spurious; I think it is exactly what the caller
intended.

another such mechanism reports that the number is unknown.

Your other mechanism probably actually tries to use that number,
contacts the owner of that number block, and gets told they haven't
actually allocated it to a customer. 000 numbers may be special cases,
in that they might be able to apply some logic to say that those are
invalid. On the other hand, they may just look at the 00 and forward it
to the PSTN, but only when you ask them to actually make the call.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 2025/10/22 15:23:38, David Woolley wrote:

On 20/10/2025 18:27, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

I was pointing out one characteristic of such calls: that one mechanism
for divining the number calling produces a (spurious) result, but that>

I don't think it is spurious; I think it is exactly what the caller intended.

I think the caller just wanted it to look plausible - but whatever. If
you want to use a different word in that sentence, it's fine by me.

another such mechanism reports that the number is unknown.

Your other mechanism probably actually tries to use that number,
contacts the owner of that number block, and gets told they haven't
actually allocated it to a customer. 000 numbers may be special cases,

My "other mechanism" is to (try to) add it to a block list. I very much
doubt that any such mechanism would go to that much trouble just for
that purpose.

in that they might be able to apply some logic to say that those are invalid. On the other hand, they may just look at the 00 and forward it
to the PSTN, but only when you ask them to actually make the call.

Which I don't do - almost the opposite of what I do.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 08:17:21 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 22/10/2025 07:39, Julian Macassey wrote:

Signal is much better than whhatscrap.

as long as the communicating parties use it...

So tell them to use it.
--
The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with faith to
fight for it. - Aneurin Bevan
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 24/10/2025 17:37, Julian Macassey wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 08:17:21 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 22/10/2025 07:39, Julian Macassey wrote:

Signal is much better than whhatscrap.

as long as the communicating parties use it...

So tell them to use it.

And if they refuse?
--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com> writes:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 08:17:21 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 22/10/2025 07:39, Julian Macassey wrote:

Signal is much better than whhatscrap.

as long as the communicating parties use it...

So tell them to use it.

That might work on a one to one basis, but when there are groups I just
remain excluded. I am not going to ask the whole group to change, I
don't even know who is in it altogether. I just keep pointing out what a
very suspect corporation Meta is.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 24/10/2025 18:16, Richmond wrote:

Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com> writes:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 08:17:21 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 22/10/2025 07:39, Julian Macassey wrote:

Signal is much better than whhatscrap.

as long as the communicating parties use it...

So tell them to use it.

That might work on a one to one basis, but when there are groups I just remain excluded. I am not going to ask the whole group to change, I
don't even know who is in it altogether. I just keep pointing out what a
very suspect corporation Meta is.

Sure. So assume despite their protestations that someone is reading
every word and listening in on every video or phone call

Russians manage it
--
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong.

H.L.Mencken

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 17:38:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 24/10/2025 17:37, Julian Macassey wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 08:17:21 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 22/10/2025 07:39, Julian Macassey wrote:

Signal is much better than whhatscrap.

as long as the communicating parties use it...

So tell them to use it.

And if they refuse?

Do you need to communicate with the ignorant and under
educated?
--
The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with faith to
fight for it. - Aneurin Bevan
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 25/10/2025 11:32, Julian Macassey wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 17:38:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 24/10/2025 17:37, Julian Macassey wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 08:17:21 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 22/10/2025 07:39, Julian Macassey wrote:

Signal is much better than whhatscrap.

as long as the communicating parties use it...

So tell them to use it.

And if they refuse?

Do you need to communicate with the ignorant and under
educated?

Yes.
I'm talking to you, aren't I?
--
"And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".

Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 2025/10/25 11:34:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/10/2025 11:32, Julian Macassey wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 17:38:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 24/10/2025 17:37, Julian Macassey wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 08:17:21 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 22/10/2025 07:39, Julian Macassey wrote:

Signal is much better than whhatscrap.

as long as the communicating parties use it...

So tell them to use it.

And if they refuse?

Do you need to communicate with the ignorant and under
educated?

Oh, often! Though fortunately not by "app", so far. Though I suspect
we'll soon need legislation protecting those of us who don't carry a
smartphone from app-only situations (e. g. parking and charging).>>

Yes.
I'm talking to you, aren't I?

:-)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 25/10/2025 11:32, Julian Macassey wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 17:38:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 24/10/2025 17:37, Julian Macassey wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 08:17:21 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 22/10/2025 07:39, Julian Macassey wrote:

Signal is much better than whhatscrap.

as long as the communicating parties use it...

So tell them to use it.

And if they refuse?

Do you need to communicate with the ignorant and under
educated?

It brings to mind something Spike Milligan wrote..

"The Duchess was an educated woman, she spoke eight languages and said
nothing intelligent in any of them."

Dave
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 25/10/2025 12:08, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

Oh, often! Though fortunately not by "app", so far. Though I suspect
we'll soon need legislation protecting those of us who don't carry a smartphone from app-only situations (e. g. parking and charging).

Maybe it's because I'm a Yorkshireman (wrongly maligned for having deep pockets and short arms!) and maybe I've been brainwashed by my grandpa's
motto of "Only a fool pays for owt in life if he can get it *legally*
for free", but I try my damnedest to park on streets where it is free
rather than in car parks where you have to pay, even if it means a bit
of a walk. It means I don't get caught up in town-centre traffic jams
and delays in getting out of a multi-storey car park.

One of the first things I do when I go to a new town is to try to suss
out where the streets are which have free parking (either unlimited or
three hours with a parking disc). I make sure I'm not blocking anyone's
drive or parking where it's not safe. And if there's a bit of street
with no houses I choose that in preference to near houses where people
might like to be able to park close to where they live, even if they
don't "own" the road outside their house.

Sometimes you don't have to travel far. I live near a seaside town which
has eye-watering parking charges on the sea front. But if you turn off
the sea-front road onto one of several side roads, you only have to
travel about 100 yards and you reach free parking in marked parking
bays. And the tourists haven't yet worked it out: even at busy times
there are often spaces in the back roads.


As regards paying to park, I wish there was legislation which made it compulsory for all parking meters and ticket machines to accept
credit/debit cards as well as taking payment by an app that you have to install and register with. I heard of one parking ticket (thankfully overturned on appeal) where a person parked and by the time they had
created an account, they had been ticketed: the traffic warden tries to
claim that you should park elsewhere while you are installing the app
and creating the account, so that by the time you entered, you were
ready to hit the ground running. If you *could* park elsewhere, you
wouldn't need to park in the car park in the first place ;-)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom


J. P. Gilliver wrote:

I suspect we'll soon need legislation protecting those of us who
don't carry a smartphone from app-only situations (e. g. parking and charging).

I think there *is* recent legislation that requires EV chargers to
accept contactless bank cards, but I don't think it extends to parking.

I've never needed to install a parking app so far ...
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 19:57:02 +0000
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

I suspect we'll soon need legislation protecting those of us who
don't carry a smartphone from app-only situations (e. g. parking and charging).

I think there *is* recent legislation that requires EV chargers to
accept contactless bank cards, but I don't think it extends to
parking.

I've never needed to install a parking app so far ...

A couple of years ago, I had occasion to park at a public car park at Felixstowe. There was no choice of location, it was the only car park
for the particular place I was visiting. The car park had payment
machines that were clearly designed to accept cash or cards for payment,
but they were inactive, and visitors had to install an 'app' to be able
to pay. Fine, if you happen to have a 'smartphone' with you. I
complained afterwards, and the reply was that it was too expensive to
maintain the machines, so they had been abandoned. The reply also said
that a 'phone call could have been made to make payment. I happened to
have a photo of the sign, and to say that this was in the small print
is to exaggerate its size. Luckily, one of my Spanish companions
downloaded and installed the required 'app' onto his 'phone, and paid
for the parking. I doubt that he will ever need that 'app' again.
--
Davey.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

I was watching BBC's Scam Investigators a couple of days ago. They were racing to get to a man before he gave the scammers some gift card numbers.

Understandably the man was sceptical and they got him to call the police
and fortunately they responded quickly.

I always wonder why they cannot have a relationship with the police so
they get them to send someone to prevent the fraud?



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 2025/10/29 9:13:45, JMB99 wrote:

I was watching BBC's Scam Investigators a couple of days ago. They were racing to get to a man before he gave the scammers some gift card numbers.

Understandably the man was sceptical and they got him to call the police
and fortunately they responded quickly.

I always wonder why they cannot have a relationship with the police so
they get them to send someone to prevent the fraud?

I wonder why they can't:

1. When the scamee (?) has been told to expect a courier to call to
collect cash, credit card, or similar, they can't lie in wait for the
"courier" - and actively encourage people to accept such arrangements,
so they could do just that. (_Maybe_ they do and are keeping it quiet,
but if so they're succeeding in keeping it quiet far more than I'd
expect possible.)

2. Have a number that can be called to say "I have a scammer on the
other line". Very many households these days have a landline and a
mobile; others may have a second mobile if there's anyone else present.


2. in particular seems very obvious. Yes, I understand that tracing of
calls isn't as easy/fast as portrayed in fiction (and even Scam
Interceptors), but I would have thought there was _some_ opportunity
being missed here. If only to collect bank account numbers (and
websites, etc.) being used by scammmers, even if they can't trace the call.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You can't abdicate and eat it
- attributed to Wallis Simpson, in Radio Times 14-20 January 2012.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2