 |  | 
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
 ·Charter Pipeline
 ·Verizon west (ex G..
| Re: Do Not Call works? I was getting so much telelmarketing, I felt I could loose nothing more by trying it.
Well, it works. I haven't recieved any telemarketing calls in a while, they just petered out.
However, I would NEVER sign up for a do-not-spam registry, since there is no way to secure that list.
--
"The three most dangerous things are a programmer with a soldering iron, a manager who codes, and a user who gets ideas." - Unknown"A computer is like an Old Testament god, with a lot of rules and no mercy." - Joseph Campbell | |
| | | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by PhoenixDown  :
I mustve missed that as I still get plagued by telemarketers. =(
If that's the case, go and report them to the FTC using the links on the »www.donotcall.gov website. Its really the only way the FTC can enforce this law and telemarketers won't get the message that breaking the law doesn't pay unless violations are reported.
I've signed up for the DNC list, and I have only had one telemarketer bother me since then. That was a few months ago. I posted 3 violations to the FTC site and they have not bothered me since. Now I am not sure if those postings resulted in any action being taken, but it is always worth a shot.
--
Win another one for the Gipper! Bush/Cheney 2004 | |
| | | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Do Not Call works? I only really noticed how effective it was after I moved and got a new number. I'm being bombarded with calls at my new number while I wait for it to make its way through the system.....probably get at least eight or nine calls a day.... | |
| | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: Do Not Call works? said by Karl Bode :
I'm being bombarded with calls at my new number while I wait for it to make its way through the system.....probably get at least eight or nine calls a day....
I'm wondering if that's due more to your phone company selling your number as soon as you set it up, or telemarketers putting every number that isn't on the DNC into some kind of war-dialer.
--
Win another one for the Gipper! Bush/Cheney 2004 | |
| | | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Do Not Call works? Could be Time Warner Cable, Verizon, DirecTV, or NY State Electric and Gas. Or all of them.... | |
| | | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
edit:
June 16th, @08:43AM
| Re: Do Not Call works? said by Karl Bode :
Could be Time Warner Cable, Verizon, DirecTV, or NY State Electric and Gas. Or all of them....
Heck I'd report them anyway. If you have the phone number from which they are calling you, then you can use »google.com or »anywho.com to do a reverse lookup and get the name of the calling company. You may not even need the name of the company either, only the number should suffice. Logically speaking, the ban on calling you should go into effect legally the second you signed up for the DNC. If the ban on calling you took effect only when the telemarketers updated their lists, then any telemarketer could just say "uh, we didn't update our list" and continue to illegally call people.
--
Win another one for the Gipper! Bush/Cheney 2004 | |
| | | | | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Do Not Call works? I thought there was some legal window the companies had before they had to get the update list, and adhere to it? Like quarterly? | |
| | | | | 
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Heck yeah it works! quote:
= fireflier ]
Only issues I have now are the exempt calls for "Political", "Charity", and "Existing Business Relationship".
Had the same problem, asked Verizon to put this special service on my POTS line, no caller-id, and they get a message stating they must release their ANI. Foils all the bot-callers! Not a SINGLE spam call in the past 3 months!
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B. - 43' Long-Range Trawler Cape Elizebeth ME.»www.tamara-b.org
| |
| | | | 
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
 ·Skype
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Heck yeah it works! If I'm understanding you right, I'm already using that service (and Bellsouth rapes me every month for something that apparently costs them pennies, but that's another topic).
It's Caller ID with anonymous caller reject. Anyone suppressing their ID gets a message that "this number does not accept anonymous calls". It knows if someone is intentionally suppressing their ID vs. someone who's calling from a CID incompatible system (like from England).
Problem is, the charities and political dweebs all have caller ID numbers, hence they're not anonymous and they get through. If Bellsouth had a service where you could push *888 and blow up the caller's phone, I'd pay for that!
--
Famous last words: "Who are you kidding, we both know that thing isn't loaded!" | |
| | | | |
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Heck yeah it works! said by fireflier :
Problem is, the charities and political dweebs all have caller ID numbers, hence they're not anonymous and they get through. If Bellsouth had a service where you could push *888 and blow up the caller's phone, I'd pay for that!
I had a radioshack phone once, which allowed you to record several messages, and assign ANI numbers to a message. I could then have a message for mom, and another one for spam calls, and another one for wife... That phone is long dead; wonder if there is a similar one on the market today?
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B. - 43' Long-Range Trawler Cape Elizebeth ME.»www.tamara-b.org
| |
| | | | | |
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
·Skype
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Heck yeah it works! Haven't seen any standalone phones like that, but I've seen a lot of software that can do that with your PC
»www.popularshareware.com/ThePhon···732.html
This was just the first one that popped up in a search.
Of course, I imagine the radio shack phone was a little more affordable than purchasing a PC to do this. . .
--
Famous last words: "Who are you kidding, we both know that thing isn't loaded!" | |
| | whoamIoramI
join:2004-05-17
Jersey City, NJ | Thats weird...bec the calls to my home from tele-marktrs is almost non-exsistent now. I used to get 20 missed calls while at work all from unknown #'s
But I do here people of still getting them...weird | |
| | | JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO
| Re: I don't think it'll work. said by l33t :
I think it will do more damage to businesses because companies can frame another company with this and then it'll corrupt the business and they'll try to eliminate the other competition.
This non-issue has been brought up before, and I don't understand why it keeps coming up, when there are serious grounds for discussion. Any properly crafted legislation - and the enforcement to back it up - is going to focus on tracking spam to its real source, and is likely to quickly see through any "frame-ups". Plus any company malicious enough to try dirty tricks on its competition already has plenty of means, from hackers and viruses to old fashioned goons. And if such maliciousness is really such a problem, is the Do-Not-Call list being used for "frame-ups"? | |
| 
Jazzy1120
Premium
join:2003-07-26
..
·AT&T Southwest
| Do-not-spam list canned by Feds 02:04 PM CDT on Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration will not immediately create a national do-not-spam registry to discourage unwanted e-mails, saying using current technology to do so might generate even more unsolicited sales pitches across the Internet, according to documents obtained Tuesday.
The Federal Trade Commission, expected to announce its decision later in the day, said it feared that unscrupulous senders of unwanted e-mails would mine such a registry of e-mail addresses looking for new victims, according to a summary of the FTC’s decision obtained by The Associated Press.
The commission, which was obligated to consider the proposal under the “can spam” legislation that Bush signed in December, concluded that it would be “largely powerless to identify those responsible for misusing the registry.”
Regulators instead proposed broad adoption of new authentication technology that will make it more difficult to disguise the origin of unwanted e-mails. Several proposals from leading technology companies, including Microsoft Corp., are under industry consideration.
“A national do-not-e-mail registry, without a system in place to authenticate the origin of e-mail messages, would fail to reduce the burden of spam and may even increase the amount of spam received by consumers,” the commission said.
If new authentication plans fail to emerge, the FTC it will convene a federal advisory committee to determine whether the government could require Internet providers to adopt one.
“Without effective authentication of e-mail, any registry is doomed to fail,” the commission said.
The government said it was particularly worried about issues of security and privacy with respect to children whose addresses might be added to such a registry.
“A registry that identified accounts used by children, for example, could assist legitimate marketers to avoid sending inappropriate messages to children,” the commission said. “At the same time, however, the Internet’s most dangerous users, including pedophiles, also could use this information to target children.” | |
| | 
tigers
join:2001-01-14
Irmo, SC
edit:
June 15th, @05:08PM
| Re: Do-not-spam list canned by Feds I don't get "telemarketers" calling me anymore, but I do get 2-3 calls per week from somebody conducting a "survey".
Seems as if this is the new scheme to get around Do Not Call since they can call you with a survey since it's not technically telemarketing. They go through their whole speech about whether or not your tap water tastes good (or whatever) and at the end of the "survey" they say something to the effect, "Now we're going to pass along these results to our partner XYZ Water Bottling Co. and they may give you a call at some point about their product, mmmmkaaayyy?"
At this point if you don't say "NO!" you've effectively opted-in and you will get telespammed.
--
63-17 | |
| | |
Jazzy1120
Premium
join:2003-07-26
..
·AT&T Southwest
| i use to get thise calls,but I signed up & went on the NO CALL LIST, don't know if that or a recording I put on my answer machine scared them off,the warning was voice, off the internet site that says,,
(wailing siren) WARNING this call is being monitored by the phone company & is being trace to your number, futher abuse of this number will results fines 7 punishment to the dullest extent of the law, U HAVE BEEN WARNED"',, | |
| | | JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO | Re: Do-not-spam list canned by Feds "Surveys" are also being used as a sort of covert advertising to circumvent campaign laws. But at least it cuts down on the annoyance and makes things harder on the marketers. | |
| | | JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO
| Re: it might not work said by Mike :
The only way to stop international spam is either: A) World Government... HAHAHAHAHA
or B) Put a cruise missile up their spamming ass.
Most "international" spam is still sponsored by US-based companies. All that would be required is to follow the money to the actual sponsor, or at least cut off the flow of money. | |
| Goldengamego
Premium
join:2004-02-22
Okemos, MI
|  SPF is not AOL
Some more info on SMTP auth.
If you look carefully at messages containing spam and e-mail worms, you see some things that aren't right. In almost every case, the addressing information that accompanies any such e-mail message is fraudulent. This is an important characteristic of these messages—and a big part of what allows them to spread so far and be so resistant to defensive measures. A solution is on the way, but it won't come easily.
The solution is SMTP authentication. The idea is that when one mail server receives a message from another, there should be some mechanism for confirming the sender's identity. That wouldn't put an absolute end to spam and e-mail worms, but it would put considerable hurdles in their path. It would make effective blacklisting practical, and it would stop the existing, endemic population of worms from spreading.
Why hasn't this happened already? There are a number of proposals in various stages of development, but progress in so fundamental an area takes time. More important, perhaps, is that implementing SMTP authentication would almost certainly require every e-mail server on the Internet to be upgraded and thus would cause considerable disruption and expense—even if the implementation is free of intellectual-property entanglements and direct cost.
Many mail servers out there haven't been upgraded in years. It may be impossible to change some, such as those in appliances, and those will need to be replaced. SMTP authentication requires nothing of the end user, though, which is one of the factors that make it so appealing.
Most SMTP authentication schemes take a somewhat similar approach: The DNS administrator of the domain where the mail server is located must publish information that allows external users to confirm the identity of the domain's mail servers. There are a number of ways to do this. With most of them, the recipient server can confirm that a message purporting to come from user@domain.com in fact does come from domain.com. Whether the message actually came from the specified user is a matter for the domain.com administrators to enforce.
This last point is important: For SMTP authentication to work properly, SMTP software and administrators will have to tighten procedures. For instance, open relays—which are mail servers that allow anyone to connect and send mail through them—will have to be eliminated, so users will be forced to log on to the server if they want to send mail.
Other security improvements are also necessary. Trivial passwords, like password or the same value as the username, need to be banned, or worms will guess at the values. For the same reason, servers will need to disable accounts if a specified consecutive number of wrong guesses at log-on are attempted. Practices such as these are common in other network log-on scenarios.
Beyond security, we can expect other problems with SMTP authentication. Many of the proposed schemes break mail forwarding, which allows one address to forward mail to another. Instead, servers will have to remail each message.
By the same token, many roaming users will have problems, for instance with sending mail "from" their corporate accounts using separate ISP accounts. Such users will probably need to use VPNs.
SMTP authentication will also mess with those E-mail This Page links on many Web pages. Usually such features will send an e-mail from your address to someone else's address. With authentication, the message will have to come from a domain controlled by the Web site.
The most mature authentication scheme is SPF (Sender Policy Framework, »spf.pobox.com ), which was published as an Internet Draft on February 11.
Put very simply, with SPF the site advertises data in its DNS server, and other mail servers can use the data to confirm that a message sent from that server actually comes from the domain it claims to come from. Quite a few systems have begun implementing this scheme. As of February 10, 6,708 domains had put SPF records in their DNSs, including aol.com, gnu.org, google.com, symantec.com, ticketmaster.com, and w3.org. Deersoft will use SPF in Version 2.70 of SpamAssassin, and Sophos plans to support SPF in upcoming releases of its antispam product PureMessage.
Since SPF works by checking the addresses of mail servers, it is subject to the problems noted above, such as breaking message forwarding and inconveniencing traveling users. There are workarounds for these problems, and even if they require changes in the mail server, that's not a big deal, since the mail server will have to change in order to support SPF anyway. Free tools are available to help you to implement SPF on your own site, including a wizard that builds the DNS entries.
Yahoo!'s Domain Keys proposal, announced several months ago but not revealed in detail, takes the idea of authentication to the next level. Instead of working with IP addresses, Domain Keys works with public-key encryption. The sending mail server signs each message using its private key and includes the signature in a special message header. Recipient mail servers can retrieve the sender's public key from the DNS to confirm the signature. In fact, with Domain Keys a domain can have many public/private key combinations for various purposes, such as supporting subdomains or even different keys for different users.
DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) also works with public-key encryption and, much like Domain Keys, allows mail servers to sign some portion of each message with a private key and allow outsiders to authenticate the signature with the public key. If the signatures match, the message's origin is authenticated; if not, the message is suspicious. But DNSSEC itself may not be secure and may introduce other problems. It's a controversial spec that has been in the works for over ten years, held up both by the problems it would create and by inertia.
Several other proposals are out there in various stages of development and neglect. Two of them, Remote Mail Exchange (RMX) and Designated Mailer Protocol (DMP), were scavenged to create SPF. The RMX spec creates a new RMX record type for the DNS, which in turn requires upgrades to DNS. RMX is more ambitious than SPF, in that it aims to authorize not just domains but e-mail addresses. DMP is still alive too, and claims it doesn't break mail forwarding. Neither has a practical implementation yet.
Authenticated Mail Transfer Protocol (AMTP) is different from the others. It actually replaces SMTP by creating a secure connection between mail servers, using Transport Layer Security (TLS) and X.509 certificates. The specification is still in development.
Faced with SMTP authentication, what could a worm author do? The worm would have to send mail from the same domain as the mail server to which it connects. Then it would have to trick the user's mail client into sending the message or sniff the log-on credentials from the network. Neither option is easy, and in both cases the worm would be sent from the actual user's address.
SMTP authentication has a reasonable chance of success only if the major mail providers—principally AOL, Microsoft, and Yahoo!—agree on one proposal and give a date beyond which they will either reject or tag unauthenticated mail. SPF is the clear candidate for that proposal. They need to move quickly before spam overwhelms us.
This info thanks to PCMag.com »www.pcmag.com/print_article/0,17···3,00.asp
--
Because Goldengamegod won't fit:p | |
| | Goldengamego
Premium
join:2004-02-22
Okemos, MI
edit:
June 15th, @06:28PM
| Re: SPF is not AOL SPF and Microsoft CallerID For Email have merged, read more at »spf.pobox.com
--
Because Goldengamegod won't fit:p | |
| | | Sunburn
join:2000-10-05
Denver, CO
edit:
June 15th, @07:23PM
| Re: SPF is not AOL (»www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/0···dex.html
All this list will do according to studies from the FTC (common sense) would be to give spammers a new list to hit. LoL "they would mine such a registry of e-mail addresses looking for new victims" according to the FTC.
No call list works only because it is way easier to enforce. I can't imagine anybody tracking down and punishing anno spamers very often. | |
| | | | Goldengamego
Premium
join:2004-02-22
Okemos, MI
| Re: SPF is not AOL said by Sunburn :
(»www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/0···dex.html
All this list will do according to studies from the FTC (common sense) would be to give spammers a new list to hit. LoL "they would mine such a registry of e-mail addresses looking for new victims" according to the FTC.
No call list works only because it is way easier to enforce. I can't imagine anybody tracking down and punishing anno spamers very often.
SMTP authentication has nothing to do with a do not spam list;)
--
Because Goldengamegod won't fit:p | |
| | | | Sunburn
join:2000-10-05
Denver, CO | wtf are u talking? about this thread is about spam registry. I am really not talking to "you" so get over it. | |
| underscoreT
join:2004-05-03
Glen Burnie, MD | How about a "Do Not Snail Spam" list? I can handle telemarketers and email spam.
But the 10 trees a week in snail junk mail I get I could do without. | |
| |
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo |  Re: How about a "Do Not Snail Spam" list?
--
Famous last words: "Who are you kidding, we both know that thing isn't loaded!" | |
| JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO
| What about the "Black Box" approach? At least in discussions I've seen, if not actually at the FTC itself, it seemed that the only approach that would work would be to make any list a "black box" - lists would be sent to the FTC, or whoever held the list, for "scrubbing", but the list itself would never be given out, and obviously there would have to be severe consequences for any attempts at reverse-engineering the list.
One of the things about the Do-Not-Call list that helps limit calling to a relatively smaller and more reputable group of users willing to play by the rules, is that it costs a substantial amount of money just to subscribe to the list. That leaves a small pool of authorized players that it is easier to police, and then by definition anyone calling outside the system is in violation of the law and easily held accountable.
If bulk e-mailing were limited to, or had to go through, a registry system subscribed to by a smaller group of companies, it would be a lot easier to track rogue spammers, and hold them - and particularly the companies that ultimately employ them - accountable. Accountability probably would have to ultimately rest with the advertiser or merchant - and they are virtually all in the US, or if offshore then still vulnerable to enforcement that could cut off their credit card payments. Right now it is too easy for companies to contract out bulk-mailing and pretend they don't know that spammers are ending up doing their work.
I say this all presuming that small and large merchants would still have the ability to e-mail recent clients without going through the "Do Not Spam" system, but would certainly have to be held accountable for not abusing that and providing unsubscribe features. The other weakness that I see in the current CAN-SPAM law is that it isn't rigorous enough about unsubscribe features - unsubscribe should always be a clear and direct link in the e-mails themselves. | |
| | | |
|
|
No 'Do Not Spam' Registry
I use my webmail exclusively since I switch ISP's frequently and can't be bothered tracking down who's got what email. Spam suxors! 
