Re: Enough!

[Steve Mynott]

Dave Hodgkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Please, would you take the politics elsewhere? Some of us really don't
> give a shit either way.

Dave (the other one) told us to!

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]

a classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody
wants to read.  -- mark twain

Re: Enough!

[Jonathan Stowe]

On 14 May 2001, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:

>
> Please, would you take the politics elsewhere? Some of us really don't
> give a shit either way.
>

I did warn them but they appeared to ignore me ...

/J\

Re: Enough!

[Jonathan Peterson]

At 15:59 14/05/01 +0100, you wrote:
>On 14 May 2001, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>
> >
> > Please, would you take the politics elsewhere? Some of us really don't
> > give a shit either way.
> >
>
>I did warn them but they appeared to ignore me ...

Actually I think we can be very proud of ourselves for having had a flame 
free politics thread. I think we all deserve a drink.


P.S. Next meeting I shall be standing on a chair and distributing copies of 
my new pamphlet "The Scientific and Social Reform Party or 'Jack and the 
Journeyman': A Treatise on the Equitable and Scientific running of Society 
for the Good of All and the Furtherment of Mankind." Also available from WE 
Thompson and Sons, Printers, Orpington Yard, price 2d.



>/J\

-- 
Jonathan Peterson
Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Enough!

[Steve Mynott]

Jonathan Stowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On 14 May 2001, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> 
> >
> > Please, would you take the politics elsewhere? Some of us really don't
> > give a shit either way.
> >
> 
> I did warn them but they appeared to ignore me ...

Can't you just kill on "politics" subject? 

(I will try and use the subject header in my posts anyway so people
can)

Personally I find discussion of politics more interesting than
American TV shows about vampires.

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]

work like you don't need the money dance like nobody's watching love
like you've never been hurt.

Re: Enough!

[Natalie Ford]

At 15:09 14/05/01, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>Please, would you take the politics elsewhere? Some of us really don't
>give a shit either way.

Hear hear!  I am getting tired of hitting delete... :)


-
Natalie Ford
Iterative Software Ltd. http://www.iterative-software.com
Yet Another Computer Solutions Company Ltd.  http://www.yacsc.com 

Re: Enough!

[Paul Makepeace]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 03:31:07PM +, Steve Mynott wrote:
> Can't you just kill on "politics" subject? 
> 
> (I will try and use the subject header in my posts anyway so people
> can)
> 
> Personally I find discussion of politics more interesting than
> American TV shows about vampires.

Concur.

I share JP's being impressed at how flame free it was. Bravo!

> -- 
> 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> work like you don't need the money dance like nobody's watching love
> like you've never been hurt.

I misread that (ENOCOMMA),

dance like you've been hurt, love like you need the money, and work
like you're being watched

:-)

Paul

Re: Enough!

[Dominic Mitchell]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:04:43PM +0100, Natalie Ford wrote:
> At 15:09 14/05/01, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> >Please, would you take the politics elsewhere? Some of us really don't
> >give a shit either way.
> 
> Hear hear!  I am getting tired of hitting delete... :)

procmail++

If anybody wants a hand getting it set up to autofilter mail, give me a
shout.

-Dom

Re: Enough!

[Matthew Byng-Maddick]

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:04:43PM +0100, Natalie Ford wrote:
> > At 15:09 14/05/01, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> > >Please, would you take the politics elsewhere? Some of us really don't
> > >give a shit either way.
> > Hear hear!  I am getting tired of hitting delete... :)
> procmail++
> If anybody wants a hand getting it set up to autofilter mail, give me a
> shout.

Exim ++ 
http://colondot.net/mbm/mailfilter.shtml

and before simon gets there:

use Mail::Audit;

MBM

-- 
Matthew Byng-Maddick  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +44 20  8980 5714  (Home)
http://colondot.net/ +44 7956 613942  (Mobile)
perl -e '$i=sub{length($_[0])-1};$_= "\n.rekcah lreP rehtona tsuJ" ;while(
&$i($_)){print unpack "x"x&$i($_)."a1", $_ ;$_=unpack"a".&$i($_),$_}print'

Re: Enough!

[Greg McCarroll]

* Steve Mynott ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 
> Personally I find discussion of politics more interesting than
> American TV shows about vampires.
> 

I enjoy aspects of the thread about politics, but get bored when it
all goes down old roads. However what i'd really hate is any 
restrictions placed on the topics of London.pm , politics should
be just as welcome as BtVS.

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Enough!

[Philip Newton]

Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
> and before simon gets there:
> 
> use Mail::Audit;

To which Johan Vromans would probably reply:

use Mail::Procmail;

Chacun à son goût.

Cheers,
Philip
-- 
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

RE: Enough!

[Cross David - dcross]

From: Greg McCarroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> However what i'd really hate is any restrictions placed 
> on the topics of London.pm , politics should be just as 
> welcome as BtVS.

Or, even, Perl :)

Dave...

-- 


The information contained in this communication is
confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient
named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader 
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  
If you have received this communication in error, please 
re-send this communication to the sender and delete the 
original message or any copy of it from your computer
system.

Re: Enough!

[David Cantrell]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 09:57:03AM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:

> and before simon gets there:
> 
> use Mail::Audit;

Mail::Audit is for *weaklings*.  My first act as Benevolent Dictator will
be to ban it, and mandate procmail.  I have been discussing this with my
soon-to-be-announced Post and Telecoms Advisor, and we are considering
funding the development of a procmail-a-like for snail-mail.  It will be
a delightfully Heath-Robinson mechanical whatsit which will clip on to
the inside of your letter box, and will reject spam with GREAT VENGEANCE
and FURY.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

Re: Enough!

[will]

- Original Message -
From: David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 4:10 AM
Subject: Re: Enough!


> Mail::Audit is for *weaklings*.  My first act as Benevolent Dictator will
> be to ban it, and mandate procmail.  I have been discussing this with my
> soon-to-be-announced Post and Telecoms Advisor, and we are considering
> funding the development of a procmail-a-like for snail-mail.  It will be
> a delightfully Heath-Robinson mechanical whatsit which will clip on to
> the inside of your letter box, and will reject spam with GREAT VENGEANCE
> and FURY.

A starving cat in a cage suspended just inside the letterbox trained to
associate the smell of Jehova's witnesses and doubleglazing salesmen with
hungry dog.

Been done before.

Re: Enough!

[Philip Newton]

David Cantrell wrote:
> a delightfully Heath-Robinson mechanical whatsit which will clip on to
> the inside of your letter box, and will reject spam with 
> GREAT VENGEANCE and FURY.

For GREAT JUSTICE.

Cheers,
Phi "how do smurfs make little smurfs?" lip
-- 
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Re: Enough!

[Dave Hodgkinson]

Greg McCarroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I enjoy aspects of the thread about politics, but get bored when it
> all goes down old roads. However what i'd really hate is any 
> restrictions placed on the topics of London.pm , politics should
> be just as welcome as BtVS.

It is with me.


-- 
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star   http://www.deep-purple.com
  Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
   

Re: Enough!

[Martin Ling]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 10:10:23AM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> 
> a delightfully Heath-Robinson mechanical whatsit which will clip on to
> the inside of your letter box, and will reject spam with GREAT VENGEANCE
> and FURY.

But you're missing a critical feature. If the thoughtful Spam M[oi]ngers
are kind enough to include a freepost return envelope, the machine
should carefully tear up all the accompanying glossies and return them
in it at their expense.

For great justice...


Martin

Re: Enough!

[Dominic Mitchell]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 10:04:45AM +0100, Cross David - dcross wrote:
> From: Greg McCarroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > However what i'd really hate is any restrictions placed 
> > on the topics of London.pm , politics should be just as 
> > welcome as BtVS.
> 
> Or, even, Perl :)

Oh, please, we have *some* standards.

-Dom

Re: Enough!

[Simon Cozens]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 10:10:23AM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> we are considering funding the development of a procmail-a-like for
> snail-mail.

I want a procphone.

-- 
VMS must die!

Re: Enough!

[Martin Ling]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 11:33:07AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> 
> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 10:10:23AM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> > we are considering funding the development of a procmail-a-like for
> > snail-mail.
> 
> I want a procphone.

Now that's reasonably feasible. Tap the incoming audio signal and feed
it to Viavoice + Perl. Have the phone be automatically answered with a
recording of your own voice saying 'Hello?'. Feed the conversation out
to speakers for your interception and amusement - if you want to take
the call, just pick up - otherwise, the script will listen for key
phrases in the incoming response ('double glazing', 'market research',
etc, etc...) and immediately on recieving one deliver a pre-recorded
appropriate rant before hanging up. With a little more advancement, it
could be got to respond to some simple fore-spam ('Can I speak to ...' /
'speaking', etc).

Hmm. I like it, wonder if the software's up to it though.


Martin

Re: Enough!

[James Powell]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 11:49:18AM +0100, Martin Ling wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 11:33:07AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 10:10:23AM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> > > we are considering funding the development of a procmail-a-like for
> > > snail-mail.
> > 
> > I want a procphone.
> 
> Now that's reasonably feasible. Tap the incoming audio signal and feed
> it to Viavoice + Perl. Have the phone be automatically answered with a
> recording of your own voice saying 'Hello?'. Feed the conversation out
> to speakers for your interception and amusement - if you want to take
> the call, just pick up - otherwise, the script will listen for key
> phrases in the incoming response ('double glazing', 'market research',
> etc, etc...) and immediately on recieving one deliver a pre-recorded
> appropriate rant before hanging up. With a little more advancement, it
> could be got to respond to some simple fore-spam ('Can I speak to ...' /
> 'speaking', etc).
> 
> Hmm. I like it, wonder if the software's up to it though.

Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers.
And if it's withheld, answer with a terse message and disconnect.

My girlfriend got her first SMS spam the other week... all it said
was "call this number 2320340 324 CompName EX7 TL7" (or similar).

jp

Re: Enough!

[Struan Donald]

* at 15/05 12:04 +0100 James Powell said:
> 
> My girlfriend got her first SMS spam the other week... all it said
> was "call this number 2320340 324 CompName EX7 TL7" (or similar).

the one i got the other day promised cheaper phone calls and all i
needed to do was phone this number at £1 a minute which seemed kinda
contradictory.

struan

Re: Enough!

[Martin Ling]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> 
> Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers.

Definitely. A whitelist too, of course.

> And if it's withheld, answer with a terse message and disconnect.

No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. 

> My girlfriend got her first SMS spam the other week... all it said
> was "call this number 2320340 324 CompName EX7 TL7" (or similar).

Odd. Most of the ones I've seen are filthy.


Martin

Re: Enough!

[Simon Cozens]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:15:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> > Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers.
> Definitely. A whitelist too, of course.

Now *this* is why I want programmable mobile phones.

-- 
Be not anxious about what you have, but about what you are.
-- Pope St. Gregory I

Re: Enough!

[Martin Ling]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:22:35PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> 
> > Definitely. A whitelist too, of course.
> 
> Now *this* is why I want programmable mobile phones.

The particularly (interesting|annoying) bit is that recent phones have
hardware capabilities sufficent for a procphone - same code as does the
voice dialling.

Ho hum. If I wasn't trying to get some work done, I'd grab sphinx and
write some code.


Martin

Re: Enough!

[Greg McCarroll]

* Simon Cozens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:15:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> > > Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers.
> > Definitely. A whitelist too, of course.
> 
> Now *this* is why I want programmable mobile phones.

nokia 9210

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Enough!

[Martin Ling]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:30:59PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote:
> 
> The particularly (interesting|annoying) bit is that recent phones have
> hardware capabilities sufficent for a procphone - same code as does the
> voice dialling.

Ho hmm... Nokia appealing to Linux coders to help with their new
set-top boxes, saying "We are convinced that openness is the way
forward". So, you'll be letting us at the firmware for this nice little
phone then...


Martin

Re: Enough!

[Simon Cozens]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:30:59PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote:
> Ho hum. If I wasn't trying to get some work done, I'd grab sphinx and
> write some code.

One of the things I plan to do on my way around America after TPC is sit
down with Kevin and DHD and start writing some funky robots. sphinx +
infobot + reefknot + festival -- why hire a secretary when you can write
one? :)

-- 
An algorithm must be seen to be believed.
-- D.E. Knuth

Re: Enough!

[Martin Ling]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:38:16PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> 
> > Now *this* is why I want programmable mobile phones.
> 
> nokia 9210

Bleh, wearable and a GSM card.


Martin

Re: Enough!

[James Powell]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:15:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> > 
> > Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers.
> 
> Definitely. A whitelist too, of course.
> 
> > And if it's withheld, answer with a terse message and disconnect.
> 
> No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. 
> 

That's what the terse message is for ("reveal yourself, or bugger off").
I suppose it could go to answerphone.



jp

Re: Enough!

[Robin Szemeti]

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Martin Ling wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> > 
> > Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers.
> 
> Definitely. A whitelist too, of course.
> 
> > And if it's withheld, answer with a terse message and disconnect.
> 
> No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. 

??? ... its simple. If they choose to withhold their number I choose to
reject their call. they can always dial  to release their number if
they choose. Many large organisations have an alternate presentation
number so you get the number of the switchboard ratehr than the office
extension number.  I simply don't want people phoning me up who refuse to
own up to who they are before they invade my privacy.

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!

Re: Enough!

[Simon Cozens]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:43:59PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> > No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. 
> That's what the terse message is for ("reveal yourself, or bugger off").
> I suppose it could go to answerphone.

Caller detect doesn't work for international calls either.

-- 
>but I'm one guy working weekends - what the hell is MS's excuse?
"We don't care, we don't have to, we're the phone company."
- Ben Jemmet, Paul Tomblin.

Re: Enough!

[Dave Hodgkinson]

Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:43:59PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> > > No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. 
> > That's what the terse message is for ("reveal yourself, or bugger off").
> > I suppose it could go to answerphone.
> 
> Caller detect doesn't work for international calls either.

Untrue. When I get calls from friends in Sweden I can see who they
are.

-- 
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star   http://www.deep-purple.com
  Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
   

Re: Enough!

[Simon Cozens]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 01:25:23PM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Caller detect doesn't work for international calls either.
> 
> Untrue. When I get calls from friends in Sweden I can see who they
> are.

And when I get calls from Japan, which happens about twice a week, I
can't.

-- 
Britain has football hooligans, Germany has neo-Nazis, and France has farmers. 
-The Times

Re: Enough!

[Dave Hodgkinson]

Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 01:25:23PM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> > Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Caller detect doesn't work for international calls either.
> > 
> > Untrue. When I get calls from friends in Sweden I can see who they
> > are.
> 
> And when I get calls from Japan, which happens about twice a week, I
> can't.

Ok, so you should have said "Caller detect doesn't work for some
international calls either".

-- 
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star   http://www.deep-purple.com
  Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
   

Re: Enough!

[Martin Ling]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:48:26PM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> 
> > No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. 
> 
> ??? ... its simple. If they choose to withhold their number I choose to
> reject their call.

Okay, whatever, I don't, it's an *option*.



Martin

Re: Enough!

[Simon Cozens]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 01:38:26PM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> Ok, so you should have said "Caller detect doesn't work for some
> international calls either".

But, you see, if a call ID is withheld, you can't tell whether they're
international calls with non-working caller detect or domestic calls from
ex-directory/paranoid numbers. So filtering on withheldness is BAD BAD BAD.

-- 
 luckily, my toes have no trailing newline characters

Re: Enough!

[Robin Szemeti]

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:43:59PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> > > No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. 
> > That's what the terse message is for ("reveal yourself, or bugger off").
> > I suppose it could go to answerphone.
> 
> Caller detect doesn't work for international calls either.

yeah .. thats fine .. it doesn't work from creaky old strowger exchanges
either (are there any of those left ? ) but there is a subtle difference
between 'number withheld' and 'number unavailable' ... rejecting on
withheld is reasonable, reject on unavailable might not be such a good
idea.

-- 
Robin Szemeti

Redpoint Consulting Limited
Real Solutions For A Virtual World

Re: Enough!

[Simon Cozens]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 02:09:47PM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> yeah .. thats fine .. it doesn't work from creaky old strowger exchanges
> either (are there any of those left ? ) but there is a subtle difference
> between 'number withheld' and 'number unavailable'

There is, but not all phones make the distinction.

-- 
Within a computer, natural language is unnatural.

Re: Enough!

[Dave Hodgkinson]

Robin Szemeti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, 15 May 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:43:59PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> > > > No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. 
> > > That's what the terse message is for ("reveal yourself, or bugger off").
> > > I suppose it could go to answerphone.
> > 
> > Caller detect doesn't work for international calls either.
> 
> yeah .. thats fine .. it doesn't work from creaky old strowger exchanges
> either (are there any of those left ?)

http://www.light-straw.co.uk/ate/strowger.html 

-- 
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star   http://www.deep-purple.com
  Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
   

Re: Enough!

[Jonathan Peterson]

At 12:48 15/05/01 +0100, you wrote:

>extension number.  I simply don't want people phoning me up who refuse to
>own up to who they are before they invade my privacy.




Yeah, me neither. Damn strangers, I don't talk to them and neither do my 
kids.

And if there's an unexpected knock at the door, I pretend I'm out. Too much 
crime. Too many weirdos.

I don't open letters without a return address - and if they've been _hand 
delivered_ with unknown handwriting - that's just sick, man.

And if someone stops me in the street and asks for directions I _always_ 
ask to see ID.

Now, If my mate phones me up in the restaurant or the train, well I always 
take the call, I mean communication is the cornerstone of society, man, yea 
I always have a good old laugh on the mobile in the pub, down the shops, in 
the library.

It's just invasion of privacy I'm against.




-- 
Jonathan Peterson
Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Enough!

[Martin Ling]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 02:08:31PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> 
> But, you see, if a call ID is withheld, you can't tell whether they're
> international calls with non-working caller detect or domestic calls from
> ex-directory/paranoid numbers. So filtering on withheldness is BAD BAD BAD.

No - there's separate codes for (at least) unavailable, withheld,
international and payphone, in combination with the actual number or
lack thereof. I can identify them with a standalone caller ID box, and I
assume at least some CID-capable modems can do so.


Martin

Re: Enough!

[Robin Szemeti]

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:

> > yeah .. thats fine .. it doesn't work from creaky old strowger exchanges
> > either (are there any of those left ?)
> 
> http://www.light-straw.co.uk/ate/strowger.html 

ah yes .. I don't even need to click the link as I've seen it b4 ..
excellent site.

In a previous life I had occasional cause to fiddle with such things,
most entertaining. Watching a group selector in action is a rare sight ..
and the noise of a large exchange in action has to be experienced.

-- 
Robin Szemeti

Redpoint Consulting Limited
Real Solutions For A Virtual World

Re: Enough!

[Robin Szemeti]

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
> At 12:48 15/05/01 +0100, you wrote:
> 
> >extension number.  I simply don't want people phoning me up who refuse to
> >own up to who they are before they invade my privacy.
> 
>  personal>
> 
> 
> Yeah, me neither. Damn strangers, I don't talk to them and neither do my 
> kids.

encouraging your kids not to speak to strangers is not without merit.



> It's just invasion of privacy I'm against.

well .. I believe you have extended the analogy just a little bit too far
:) . .the main reason _I_  decline to answer 'withheld number' calls is
because almost every single one is a halfwit trying to sell me
insurance/glazing/burglar alarms/toilet roll (yes.. really) even though
I am registered with the TPS .. If they were anything like legal, decent
honest or truthful they would have no problem with releasing the number
.. the fact that they don;t tells me something about their methods of
doing business. At least when someone approaches you in the street you can
tell in advance if they have something like a reasonable query or a
clipboard and leaflet.

Its much the same reason I have a kill file and sometime enable the RBL
options in sendmail .. junk crap winds me up, phone calls, mail, email.
Find me a spammer and I'll find something slow and lingering to do to it.

-- 
Robin Szemeti

Redpoint Consulting Limited
Real Solutions For A Virtual World

Re: Enough!

[Robert Shiels]

From: "Robin Szemeti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> well .. I believe you have extended the analogy just a little bit too far
> :) . .the main reason _I_  decline to answer 'withheld number' calls is
> because almost every single one is a halfwit trying to sell me
> insurance/glazing/burglar alarms/toilet roll (yes.. really) even though

Yes - they generally call me between 6pm and 8pm. If we leave the phone to
the answering machine around this time, and the caller doesn't leave a
message, then 1471 always tells me that "The caller withheld their number".

We keep winning "free" holidays/windows/kitchens etc

I say "No - I do not want a free $gift"

and the people at the call center get quite indignant that I do want it, and
that I musn't understand the offer.

I have worked as a telemarketer, so feel a bit sorry for them as it's a shit
job, so I just say "No thanks" and hang up.

/Robert

Re: Enough!

[Steve Mynott]

Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:43:59PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> > > No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. 
> > That's what the terse message is for ("reveal yourself, or bugger off").
> > I suppose it could go to answerphone.
> 
> Caller detect doesn't work for international calls either.

In theory it should but it depends on the signalling used on the
calls.  Many countries should connect via SS7 which should work.

Some probably don't pass the CLI for various technical reasons and
some use earlier signalling systems.

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 that's one huge plus about *bsd. it's easy to pronounce

Re: Enough!

[Steve Mynott]

Greg McCarroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> * Simon Cozens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:15:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> > > > Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers.
> > > Definitely. A whitelist too, of course.
> > 
> > Now *this* is why I want programmable mobile phones.
> 
> nokia 9210

But is it actually programmable by the end user?

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  /"\
  \ /
   x  ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail 
  / \

Re: Enough!

[David Cantrell]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:15:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote:

> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> 
> > And if it's withheld, answer with a terse message and disconnect.
> 
> No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. 

And me refusing to answer them is *my* legitimate privacy concern.  I find
that refusing to answer CLID-free calls, and using the answering machine,
is a sufficient procphone.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our "most advanced operating system
   in the world" which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh

Re: Enough!

[David Cantrell]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:38:16PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:

> * Simon Cozens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > Now *this* is why I want programmable mobile phones.
> 
> nokia 9210

Which is still, AFAIK, unobtainium.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our "most advanced operating system
   in the world" which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh

Re: Enough!

[David Cantrell]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 01:15:57PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:43:59PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> > > No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern. 
> > That's what the terse message is for ("reveal yourself, or bugger off").
> > I suppose it could go to answerphone.
> 
> Caller detect doesn't work for international calls either.

I think this depends on the telcos.  It works perfectly for calls between
Vodafone and whatever GSM provider it is that covers NYC.

Anyway, we accept imperfect mail filtering, we'll accept imperfect phone
filtering.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our "most advanced operating system
   in the world" which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh

Re: Enough!

[David Cantrell]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 02:08:31PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 01:38:26PM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> > Ok, so you should have said "Caller detect doesn't work for some
> > international calls either".
> 
> But, you see, if a call ID is withheld, you can't tell whether they're
> international calls with non-working caller detect or domestic calls from
> ex-directory/paranoid numbers. So filtering on withheldness is BAD BAD BAD.

No it's not bad.  They get filtered to the answering machine so I can deal
with them later*.  As far as I'm concerned, it's THEIR FAULT that I can't
id them.  I *really* don't care if their telco is broken.  Everyone who
I can envision needing to talk to me urgently (family, close friends) has
CLID enabled.

* - if I'm filtering.  I'm not filtering at the moment.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our "most advanced operating system
   in the world" which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh

Re: Enough!

[Greg McCarroll]

* Steve Mynott ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Greg McCarroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > * Simon Cozens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:15:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> > > > > Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers.
> > > > Definitely. A whitelist too, of course.
> > > 
> > > Now *this* is why I want programmable mobile phones.
> > 
> > nokia 9210
> 
> But is it actually programmable by the end user?
> 

yes

> -- 
> 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   /"\
>   \ /
>x  ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail 
>   / \
-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Enough!

[Robin Szemeti]

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 02:09:47PM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> > yeah .. thats fine .. it doesn't work from creaky old strowger exchanges
> > either (are there any of those left ? ) but there is a subtle difference
> > between 'number withheld' and 'number unavailable'
> 
> There is, but not all phones make the distinction.

well if I was intending to base my filtering on withheld/unavailable I
would make sure my phone *did* make the distinction .. most do. Also BT
are intending to introduce a service called 'choose to refuse' where for
a simple one-off payment you can automatically offer 'withheld' callers
the option of pressing '1' to release their number or some such.  AIUI
'not availbale' numbers can be passed on with a 'distinctive ring'

-- 
Robin Szemeti

Redpoint Consulting Limited
Real Solutions For A Virtual World

Re: Enough!

[Paul Makepeace]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 05:00:28PM +0100, Robert Shiels wrote:
> I have worked as a telemarketer, so feel a bit sorry for them as it's a shit
> job, so I just say "No thanks" and hang up.

You can buy these little devices that emit a canned request to be
removed from the lists which these people are legally required to do or
else   face being in quite some trouble. It's quite funny, hold the
keychain toy up to the mic and let it rip.

Paul

Re: Enough!

[Martin Ling]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> 
> > nokia 9210
> 
> Which is still, AFAIK, unobtainium.

I know someone who knows someone who has a test model - I'll prod on
programmability.


Martin

Re: Enough!

[Robin Houston]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 07:12:02PM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> 
> well if I was intending to base my filtering on withheld/unavailable I
> would make sure my phone *did* make the distinction .. most do. Also BT
> are intending to introduce a service called 'choose to refuse'

They already offer it.
You can bar up to ten numbers (IIRC). I don't know how it deals
with withheld numbers. Never checked.

 .robin.

-- 
"It really depends on the architraves." --Harl

Re: Enough!

[David Cantrell]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 08:59:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> > 
> > > nokia 9210
> > 
> > Which is still, AFAIK, unobtainium.
> 
> I know someone who knows someone who has a test model - I'll prod on
> programmability.

Greg has (had?) one to play with.  It is programmable.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our "most advanced operating system
   in the world" which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh

Re: Enough!

[Neil Ford]

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 10:41:03PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 08:59:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> > > 
> > > > nokia 9210
> > > 
> > > Which is still, AFAIK, unobtainium.
> > 
> > I know someone who knows someone who has a test model - I'll prod on
> > programmability.
> 
> Greg has (had?) one to play with.  It is programmable.
> 
Had is the correct tense, seeing as Mr McCarroll is currently resting between
engagements. 

Neil.
-- 
Neil C. Ford
Managing Director, Yet Another Computer Solutions Company Limited
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.yacsc.com

Re: Enough!

[Greg McCarroll]

* Neil Ford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 10:41:03PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 08:59:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > nokia 9210
> > > > 
> > > > Which is still, AFAIK, unobtainium.
> > > 
> > > I know someone who knows someone who has a test model - I'll prod on
> > > programmability.
> > 
> > Greg has (had?) one to play with.  It is programmable.
> > 
> Had is the correct tense, seeing as Mr McCarroll is currently resting between
> engagements. 
> 

of course in the meantime you can download the nokia 9210 emulator that
will allow you to test your programs ahead of time (check out nokia
dev zone or some such)

C++ programmers may also enjoy the very fine "Symbian Programming" by
Tasker and co.

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Enough!

[Steve Mynott]

David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 08:59:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> > > 
> > > > nokia 9210
> > > 
> > > Which is still, AFAIK, unobtainium.
> > 
> > I know someone who knows someone who has a test model - I'll prod on
> > programmability.
> 
> Greg has (had?) one to play with.  It is programmable.

The organiser bit I am sure is programmable but I was just wondering
to what degree the phone part itself is accessible, eg. can you read
the sort of phone information visible from the Nokia Net Monitor like
the TIMSI etc.

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]

if you understand what you're doing, you're not learning anything.
-- a. l.

Re: Enough!

[Greg McCarroll]

* Steve Mynott ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 08:59:32PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 05:43:52PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > nokia 9210
> > > > 
> > > > Which is still, AFAIK, unobtainium.
> > > 
> > > I know someone who knows someone who has a test model - I'll prod on
> > > programmability.
> > 
> > Greg has (had?) one to play with.  It is programmable.
> 
> The organiser bit I am sure is programmable but I was just wondering
> to what degree the phone part itself is accessible, eg. can you read
> the sort of phone information visible from the Nokia Net Monitor like
> the TIMSI etc.
> 

there are definetly telephone APIs available for EPOC, now i'm not
sure if you can replace they default phone functionality or not

so that your app would handle the incoming call, 

i'll have a read up on it later
-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Enough!

[Simon Wistow]

Simon Cozens wrote:
 
> Now *this* is why I want programmable mobile phones.

Me strokes the Java (well, J2ME) phone he has lying around and points at
http://www.midletcentral.com/.

I've just spent the last two days coding for the ARM chip in a new phone
for Sendo. It was hell. You don't want to program for phones they're
silly and they have memory split into two places and you have to ahnd
code jumps between the two areas and you have to write your own linker
maps and stuff and upload binarys via serial connections and then debug
using Hyperterminal.

/me strokes the pony

Re: Enough!

[Simon Wistow]

Simon Cozens wrote:

> One of the things I plan to do on my way around America after TPC is sit
> down with Kevin and DHD and start writing some funky robots. sphinx +
> infobot + reefknot + festival -- why hire a secretary when you can write
> one? :)


I've been meaning to have a crack at hooking together Asterisk
(OpenSource, http://www.asteriskpbx.com/main/), Festival (Speech
Synthesis, http://www.cstr.ed.ac.uk/projects/festival/), Sphinx (OS,
speech recognition, http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/sphinx/), Perl and one
of the info bots/POE for a couple fo years now. 

I've just never had the time :(

Fairly easy to write your own 'Wildfire'-esque system with this. Hook it
into Mister House (open source home automation program,
http://misterhouse.net/) and you could do some really funky things by
just phoning up your house 


[ring ring, ring ring]
Dipsy : hello
Simon : I need an exit


Errr, I'll just get me coat shall I?

Re: Enough!

[Simon Cozens]

On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 10:27:47AM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote:
> Fairly easy to write your own 'Wildfire'-esque system with this. Hook it
> into Mister House (open source home automation program,
> http://misterhouse.net/) and you could do some really funky things by
> just phoning up your house 

Mandrake has already done this, I think.

> [ring ring, ring ring]
> Dipsy : hello
  ^ YM "Operator". :)
> Simon : I need an exit

-- 
Chomsky is COBOL
-- Sean Burke

Caller ID (was Re: Enough!)

[Jonathan Peterson]

At 21:08 15/05/01 +0100, you wrote:

>They already offer it.
>You can bar up to ten numbers (IIRC). I don't know how it deals
>with withheld numbers. Never checked.

I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that you always send your CID when 
you make a phone call. If you choose to withhold the ID, it still gets 
sent, it just gets sent with a 'do not disclose' flag set, which all (BT 
approved) phones and services (like 1471) must honour. Therefore it should 
be easy for BT themselves to offer something that can bar CID witheld 
calls.

But this might be wrong, or might just be how the US system works or 
something.


-- 
Jonathan Peterson
Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Caller ID (was Re: Enough!)

[Steve Mynott]

"Jonathan Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that you always send your CID when 
> you make a phone call. If you choose to withhold the ID, it still gets 
> sent, it just gets sent with a 'do not disclose' flag set, which all (BT 
> approved) phones and services (like 1471) must honour. Therefore it should 
> be easy for BT themselves to offer something that can bar CID witheld 
> calls.
> 
> But this might be wrong, or might just be how the US system works or 
> something.

This is basically right but some ways of making a call don't send any
CLI at all and the US and UK systems are different.

The BT specs are online:-



-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter
regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not
been caught.  -- henry l. mencken

Re: Caller ID (was Re: Enough!)

[Steve Mynott]

"Jonathan Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that you always send your CID when 
> > you make a phone call. If you choose to withhold the ID, it still gets 
> > sent, it just gets sent with a 'do not disclose' flag set, which all (BT 
> > approved) phones and services (like 1471) must honour. Therefore it should 
> > be easy for BT themselves to offer something that can bar CID witheld 
> > calls.

BT do offer this service if you are on an AXE10/System X switch



It's called "Anonymous Call Rejection" 

It's even available on UXD5 which are very old rural exachanges.



-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]

reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
-- philip k. dick

Re: Caller ID (was Re: Enough!)

[Robin Szemeti]

On Wed, 16 May 2001, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
> At 21:08 15/05/01 +0100, you wrote:
> 
> >They already offer it.
> >You can bar up to ten numbers (IIRC). I don't know how it deals
> >with withheld numbers. Never checked.
> 
> I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that you always send your CID when 
> you make a phone call. If you choose to withhold the ID, it still gets 
> sent, it just gets sent with a 'do not disclose' flag set, which all (BT 
> approved) phones and services (like 1471) must honour. Therefore it should 
> be easy for BT themselves to offer something that can bar CID witheld 
> calls.
> 
> But this might be wrong, or might just be how the US system works or 
> something.

umm maybe in the US .. 

In the UK the CLDN (calling line dialled number) is stripped at the
terminating exchange and replaced with a 'reason for abscence of dialled
number' code ('O' for unavailable, 'P' for withheld .. theres logic in
there somewhere ;)

if it really did send it on it would just be too easy to make a box to
display numbers whether they were withheld or not. Obviously the telcos
still have access to the routing information internally, for call tracing
and such, but its not passed on to the customer. 

I do keep intending to do something cute with my ISDN adapter and log the
stuff coming out of the D channel and see whats in there ... but time has
prevented it etc.

-- 
Robin Szemeti

Redpoint Consulting Limited
Real Solutions For A Virtual World

Re: Caller ID (was Re: Enough!)

[Dominic Mitchell]

On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:59:07AM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> I do keep intending to do something cute with my ISDN adapter and log the
> stuff coming out of the D channel and see whats in there ... but time has
> prevented it etc.

I'd be interested to hear how you get on... I was under the impression
that the D channel was an always on 16k-thing.  It'd be interesting to
see what gets sent down there normally...

-Dom

Re: Caller ID (was Re: Enough!)

[Matthew Byng-Maddick]

On Wed, 16 May 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:59:07AM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> > I do keep intending to do something cute with my ISDN adapter and log the
> > stuff coming out of the D channel and see whats in there ... but time has
> > prevented it etc.
> I'd be interested to hear how you get on... I was under the impression
> that the D channel was an always on 16k-thing.  It'd be interesting to
> see what gets sent down there normally...

CLI / Destination number that kind of thing. Signalling information
basically.

MBM

-- 
Matthew Byng-Maddick  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +44 20  8980 5714  (Home)
http://colondot.net/ +44 7956 613942  (Mobile)
In California they don't  throw their  garbage away  --  they make it into
television shows. -- Woody Allen, "Annie Hall"

Re: Caller ID (was Re: Enough!)

[Robin Szemeti]

On Wed, 16 May 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:59:07AM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> > I do keep intending to do something cute with my ISDN adapter and log the
> > stuff coming out of the D channel and see whats in there ... but time has
> > prevented it etc.
> 
> I'd be interested to hear how you get on... I was under the impression
> that the D channel was an always on 16k-thing.  It'd be interesting to
> see what gets sent down there normally...

ummm it might be 9k6 but yes, its always on. My card will do either two B
(64k) channels or a B and D channel ... 

most of what gets sent down there is CLID, charge info, etc .. I think
they strip a load of it off if you only pay for home highway .. and allow
it through if you pay for business highway... ie they actually go to some
trouble to provide a worse service .. fules.

-- 
Robin Szemeti

Redpoint Consulting Limited
Real Solutions For A Virtual World

Re: Caller ID (was Re: Enough!)

[Steve Mynott]

Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, 16 May 2001, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> > On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:59:07AM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> > > I do keep intending to do something cute with my ISDN adapter and log the
> > > stuff coming out of the D channel and see whats in there ... but time has
> > > prevented it etc.
> > I'd be interested to hear how you get on... I was under the impression
> > that the D channel was an always on 16k-thing.  It'd be interesting to
> > see what gets sent down there normally...
> 
> CLI / Destination number that kind of thing. Signalling information
> basically.

I have heard of people using the D channel signalling to communicate
for free.

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]

liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.
-- harry emerson fosdick

Re: Caller ID (was Re: Enough!)

[Philip Newton]

Steve Mynott wrote:
> I have heard of people using the D channel signalling to communicate
> for free.

I've also heard of phone companies cursing such users and trying to ban
programs that support that.

At least in Germany, there was a program (or several?) that took advantage
of the fact that when you initiate a connection, you can also transfer a
small data packet. So they would initiate a connection and include a small
data packet, then immediately tear down the connection before it was
answered, and initiate another connection with the next few bytes. All this
stuff was free (since no connection was established completely), but
apparently a lot of load on the switching network.

However, German Telecom used to have a service (don't know whether they
still do) whereby you could have an always-on connection using the D channel
with a type of Datex-P-over-ISDN (a packet-switched(?) network in Germany
where you pay by the packet rather than by the minute, and where no
permanent connections are established: a bit like UDP). So you could have
your email delivered to you, or stock ticks, or other stuff that didn't need
high bandwidth.

Cheers,
Philip
-- 
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Re: Caller ID (was Re: Enough!)

[Chris Benson]

On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:15:52AM +0100, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:59:07AM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> > I do keep intending to do something cute with my ISDN adapter and log the
> > stuff coming out of the D channel and see whats in there ... but time has
> > prevented it etc.
> 
> I'd be interested to hear how you get on... I was under the impression
> that the D channel was an always on 16k-thing.  It'd be interesting to
> see what gets sent down there normally...

My faux-ISDN (HomeHighway) tells me things like:

* tei 115 calling +44 /8452120667, Great Britain with +44 1912/39, Tyneside  RING 
(Data)
tei 115 calling +44 /8452120667, Great Britain with +44 1912/39, Tyneside  CONNECT 
(Data)
tei 115 calling +44 /8452120667, Great Britain with +44 1912/39, Tyneside  1.CI 
0.120 DM (now 
tei 115 calling +44 /8452120667, Great Britain with +44 1912/39, Tyneside  NEXT CI 
AFTER 00:1 Euro 2, Wochenende (Samstag))
tei 115 calling +44 /8452120667, Great Britain with +44 1912/39, Tyneside  0.CI 
0.000 DM (aft   )
tei 115 calling +44 /8452120667, Great Britain with +44 1912/39, Tyneside  NEXT CI 
AFTER Euro 2, Wochenende (Samstag))
tei 115 calling +44 /8452120667, Great Britain with +44 1912/39, Tyneside  HINT: 
Overall cheapest 01011:o.tel.o CbC 0.000 DM (saving 0.000 DM)
tei 115 calling +44 /8452120667, Great Britain with +44 1912/39, Tyneside  HINT: 
LCR:OK   

(The driver does numeric->German translations for free).
If anyone rings my number I vaguely remember it telling me the German
for "number withheld", but I don't answer anymore so no-one rings.

Real ISDN can use the D channel to do neat things like re-direct calls ...
without tying up any of your channels, your PBX just tells the exchange 
to route the call elsewhere after you've looked at the details.  

Some people on news:uk.telecom had various schemes for
- redirecting incoming junk faxes to other premium-rate fax numbers 
- diverting CLID withheld to a TAM "This number does not accept anonymous
calls, please redial.  You *have* been charged for this call. "
- diverting CLID unavailable to a (different) TAM "Please leave a message".

-- 
Chris Benson

Privacy, its their choice! ( was Re: Enough!)

[Jonathan Stowe]

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Robin Szemeti wrote:

> On Tue, 15 May 2001, Martin Ling wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:04:24PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> > >
> > > Heh, don't forget to have a RBL-like list of source telephone numbers.
> >
> > Definitely. A whitelist too, of course.
> >
> > > And if it's withheld, answer with a terse message and disconnect.
> >
> > No; many people withhold automatically, it a legitimate privacy concern.
>
> ??? ... its simple. If they choose to withhold their number I choose to
> reject their call. they can always dial  to release their number if
> they choose. Many large organisations have an alternate presentation
> number so you get the number of the switchboard ratehr than the office
> extension number.  I simply don't want people phoning me up who refuse to
> own up to who they are before they invade my privacy.
>

I also have killfile entries for all the usenet anonymizers that I know
of for precisely the same reason.

/J\