From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 17 00:03:02 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2H532Q24031; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:03:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:03:02 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403170503.i2H532Q24031@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #126 TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:03:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 126 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New Norvergence Files in Archives (TELECOM Digest Editor) AXXESS Forced Mute Help (EFL) Re: Caller ID for PC (Tony P.) Re: Caller ID for PC (J Kelly) Re: Dial From Outlook (Daryl R Gibson) Re: Dial From Outlook (RC@mail2.sol.net) Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name (Henry E Schaffer) Re: Billed by AT&T for PNG (Linc Madison) Re: SkyFILES: The Aftermath of DISH/Viacom (Gary Novosielski) Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet (Tony P.) Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet (nospam) Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet (Steven J Sobol) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:07:48 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: New Norvergence Files in Archives I said last week I was going to try to get three new files on Norvergence moved into the archives. The volume of spam coming through pretty much kept that from happening until just tonight, but now those three files are in place. Look at http://telecom-digest.org and the reports section of the archives. Therein, look for norvergence-nortel.jpg as well as norvergence1.doc and norvergence2.doc ; the .jpg file is Nortel's disclaimer of any business arrangement with Norvergence. The two .doc files are a discussion of the matrix device and a user's formal account of the 'scam' Norvergence has perpetrated. Sorry it took me so long to get these in place. PAT ------------------------------ From: eflist@nj2la.com (EFL) Subject: AXXESS Forced Mute Help Date: 16 Mar 2004 13:23:06 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com HELP! We have an axxess system (phone model 8520) and for some unknown reason my mute button, when I am in speakerphone mode, cannot and willnot be disabled. When I do try to push it, I get CANNOT DISABLE FORCED MUTE. All other times, the mute button works fine. Please let me know if you can help me! -eflist*at*nj2la*dot*com ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Caller ID for PC Organization: ATCC Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:55:22 GMT In article , flatus@militaryretired.us says: > On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 05:24:16 GMT, Tony P. wrote in > news:telecom23.123.5@telecom-digest.org: >> In article , >> jkelly@newsguy.com says: >>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:54:24 UTC, >>> dold@CallerXIDX.usenet.us.com wrote: >>>> Why not get a $10 caller ID device at Target, and plug it >>>> in to the "phone" port of your modem? >>> Because the desk has enough devices sitting on it, and I >>> like the pop-up CID software I have. I just got a new >>> cordless phone so the old one that also had CID moved to >>> the computer room, so I guess that solves my dillema for >>> the most part. I will miss the logging that the software >>> did, but I guess I'll live. Thanks for the reply. >> Just FYI -- the HSP56 modems built into most PC's handle >> CLID just fine. You just need software to monitor it. Go to >> download.com and search on Caller ID. > I tried every caller ID software I could find on line a couple of > years back. None met my expectations when used with Windows (as > opposed to a couple of pretty good ones from the DOS days). > What I wanted, in addition to a really large visual pop-up, was > call logging, ability to pull the computer out of screen-saver > mode, very fast reaction time, and ability to return calls. > FWIW, the best CID devices I have are the ones built into my > DirecTV receivers. They really do work well. Umm ... I think the company is called Sunny Beach Software. They sell a package of VB routines for accessing the Caller-ID information from TAPI. ------------------------------ From: J Kelly Subject: Re: Caller ID for PC Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 17:15:50 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Reply-To: jkelly@newsguy.com On 15 Mar 2004 22:44:30 GMT, Flatus Ohlfahrt wrote: > What I wanted, in addition to a really large visual pop-up, was > call logging, ability to pull the computer out of screen-saver > mode, very fast reaction time, and ability to return calls. CallTrace has the really large pop up and logging. Not sure on pulling out of screensaver mode (if it's in screensaver I'm probably not at the PC anyway). ------------------------------ From: Daryl R Gibson Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:17:20 -0700 Subject: Re: Dial From Outlook On 16 Mar 2004 at 14:23, editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just of curiosity, I have a Motorola > Cable Modem model 'SB4220' Surfboard. On the back of this modem, in > addition to the cable in/output and the ethernet cable connection > and the power cord, there is a place for a USB connection. Who knows > what that USB connection is for? Would some people use that instead > of the ethernet connector? PAT] Quite right. The cable modem can be connected through a standard RJ45, or through the USB connector, making a NIC for the PC unnecessary. My Linksys cable modem also has both options, as do some others. I've never used the USB, though, so I don't know what kind of throughput it gives compared to the Ethernet jack. Linksys also sells several nice USB-to-network connectors, for both wired and wireless, including a very nice NIC that has a collapsing RJ-45 jack embedded in the unit, and a compact Wi-Fi adapter that looks for all the world like a standard USB "drive." Some people like them for connecting their TIVOs. Daryl "As you ramble through life, brother, no matter what your goal, keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole" --Dr. Murray Banks, quoting a menu http://www.drgibson.com http://www.salesstar.com Personal Motivation and Positive Attitude ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Subject: Re: Dial From Outlook Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:53:12 -0500 Organization: NNTP Servers - The best Usenet service available anywhere saturnius wrote in message news:telecom23.125.6@telecom-digest.org: > Dear all, > Thank you for your replies. > The reason for using Outlook is because I do synchronise with my > mobile telephone and my PDA -- Why using an other programme? > On the other hand, me and my collegues (they are a bit older ;-) are > used to "standard" telephones. Why is there not a progamme that uses > the serial interface (or USB) to connect to a standard telephone? What I'm trying to tell you is that you don't need anything more then a modem. The line goes into the modem line jack, the phone goes into the modem phone jack, configure the PCs "Telephony" service so that "voice" calls are associated with that modem (this is the default) and you're done. BTW when was the last time you saw a serial port on a standard telephone???? ------------------------------ From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E Schaffer) Subject: Re: Spam Going Out Under My Name Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:05:07 UTC Organization: North Carolina State University In article , SELLCOM Tech support wrote: > I'm afraid that the newer viruses are doing that these days. I get > a lot of bounces of undeliverables that were "from" me, but from > some obscure IP address (if there can be such a thing). Sometimes > even an IP starting with 81. > The virus harvests email addresses to use and uses them in > the from fields. Look at the IP address, that is the key. The mail agent I use (elm) makes it very easy to view all of the mail headers, so it is easy for me to trace back all of the Received: mail headers and see where the mail (apparently) originated. These aren't from my domain or IP number range. But the mail agents that most of my friends and colleagues use make it difficult or impossible to view all of the mail headers - so they can't do the same thing. --henry schaffer hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Billed by AT&T for PNG Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:50:44 -0800 From: Linc Madison Reply-To: lincmad@suespammers.org Organization: California resident; nospam; no unsolicited e-mail allowed In article , Fred Atkinson wrote: > My landlady switched from AT&T to Power Net Global in September > of last year. I know this is true because I helped her switch over. > And she has been paying Power Net Global ever since. > AT&T's collections people have been calling her. ... > [inconsistent answers as to when the calls were made, no one will > take responsibility, etc.] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: AT&T is the classic example of an > unstoppable object meeting an unmoveable object. Unfortunately, my experience with PNG was far worse, to the point that I take every possible opportunity to recommend that no one, not even my worst enemies, do business with them. They displayed repeated massive incompetence in setting up a simple 800 number. They assigned my 800 number and started billing me for it, but never bothered to tell me what the number was! Even during regular business hours, all I ever got the first 8 or 10 times I called their customer service number was a voice mailbox which was usually already full. After I finally found out and started using the number, they assigned it to another customer, so my 800 number was now ringing in South Dakota. We got that squared away, and then they did it again, a second, and later even a third time! (This was not a shared number with different PINs, but just a straight 800 number that could only ring to one customer at a time.) I gave them my work number as a contact for keeping me apprised of their progress in resolving the issue, so, of course, they started ringing the 800 number on my work phone instead of my home phone, even though I made it very clear that the work phone was an "alternate contact number," not a new number for the 800 line to ring to. Not long after that, I found another company to handle my 800 number, and cursed the day that I ever heard of Power Net Global, with only the consolation that I would never hear from them again. Or so I thought. More than three years after my PNG account was closed, they suddenly began billing me a $3 monthly minimum service charge. I complained to the FCC and the CPUC, and they stopped. Bottom line: the problem this time around may be AT&T or it may be PNG. However, doing business with PNG, it is only a matter of time before they make a complete mess of anything they come in contact with. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * lincmad@suespammers.org * primary e-mail: Telecom at LincMad dot com All U.S. and California anti-spam laws apply, incl. CA BPC 17538.45(c) This text constitutes actual notice as required in BPC 17538.45(f)(3). DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED E-MAIL TO THIS ADDRESS. You have been warned. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh my ... I have never had any experience with PNG, but I regretfully have had enough with AT&T to know how bad they have gotten in recent years. Based on Linc's testimony here, I would have to agree it could well have been the fault of either of the circus clowns; but if correspondent's landlady has cancelled checks for service, then I would just toss out the checks and tell the two telcos to squabble over it; the bills are paid. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: SkyFILES: The Aftermath of DISH/Viacom Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 02:17:38 GMT Tony P. wrote: > Because if they didn't spread the cost among ALL their subscribers the > cost to that segment who regularly enjoys having all the sports channels > would bear an unreasonable cost. > It wouldn't be a viable market for ESPN. But would there be any down-side? ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet Organization: ATCC Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:10:55 GMT In article , mchance@swbell.net says: > In article , > eelder1@tampabay.rr.com says: >> An insidious plot is underway to bug the Internet. Many of you who >> have lost jobs know what bad news the Bush administration has been to >> the IT community. The story is getting even worse. President Bush >> wants to bug the Internet. He wants to read your email, see what you >> are downloading and find out what you are buying on Ebay. He also >> wants to listen in your VoiP calls. > Just a bit Chicken Little-ish, eh? Frankly, I doubt if President Bush > would be interested in much of what your saying over the Internet, or > on your VoIP phone calls, or anything else, even if he had the time. > However, if you're engaged in criminal behavior and law enforcement > types need proof positive before they haul you into court, and they > can convince a judge that you're up to no good, then you'd have > something to worry about. > Just like you do with your wireline and wireless phone calls now. Tapping a line be it wired or wireless requires a judge's signature on the warrant to do so. The rules being proposed would take the judge out of the equation. > No great conspiracy. Just extending the current rules, with all of > the current protections, to digital communications. Wireline and > wireless phone companies have to provide the means to put legal > wiretaps on their facilities under court orders. Why should ISPs and > VoIP phone companies be exempt? You'd have felt right at home in Germany during Hitler's time wouldn't you. In article , pv+usenet@pobox.com says: > joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) writes: >> If the government can use the technology to stop one terrorist attack, >> or to catch one future greedy CEO, or to break up a drug dealing >> operation, why should I care if they can also read my personal e-mail? > There's a certain quote by Benjamin Franklin that you need to familiarize > yourself with. * Ah yes -- those who clamor for security while preserving liberty deserve neither. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But sir, your assertion that a judge's signature is required on a warrant (true) making it sound as though it were difficult to obtain (false) shows you to be very naive. Judges tend to do whatever their puppet-masters, police and prosecutors, tell them to do. It takes absolutely no effort to obtain a warrant at all. Prosecutor just asks for one, and usually the judge knows better than to refuse the request. Oh, theoretically he could refuse to sign off on it, but in actual practice they don't refuse the request. By eliminating that requirement it would simply bring things more in line with how they actually are. Either that, or supply each prosecutor with a rubber stamp of the judge's signature. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nospam Subject: Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:54:06 -0500 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:14:16 GMT, joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, why is it so bad if the > government can tap into my e-mail the same way they do into my phones? > If the government can use the technology to stop one terrorist attack, > or to catch one future greedy CEO, or to break up a drug dealing > operation, why should I care if they can also read my personal e-mail? There are a lot of reasons, starting with 1. Hoover. 2. Abuses and coverups, like the time an FBI "sharpshooter" shot a baby in her mother's arms. 3. "The former chief internal watchdog at the FBI has pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 6-year-old girl and has admitted he had a history of molesting other children before he joined the bureau for what became a two-decade career. " See http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/sns-ap-fbi-child-molester,0,5538886.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines > My personal view is that all of these efforts are in vain anyway. Any > first-semester encryption textbook gives me the tools to create secure > electronic communications on the Internet. (For example, if I really > cared to, I could generate a huge one-time random cypher, give the > only copy to my friend, and the only way people could read our > conversations is if they stole a copy of the key. If I wanted to > transfer the key without telling my friend "I'm transfering the key," > I could use a track on a publicly available CD for the key, or send a > JPG of a friend, etc.) Key? Cipher? All you need to do is know how to XOR. I agree with your view that its all in vain. Thus the two biggest reasons against it are: 1. We have to pay for something that doesn't help our security. 2. The people that should be watching the terrorists are lulled into a false sense of complacency. IMO, the whole reason the agencies are up in arms is that they're faced with something they don't understand, and trying to apply the things that worked in the past. This is sort of like building a stronger Maginot line because today's tanks are more powerful than ever, and disregarding bombers, ICBMs, cruise missiles, nuclear weapons, and the like. On the other hand, the technical community sees ways to get around the agency solution that are so obvious they can't believe the agency personal didn't see them. So it looks like the agencies are malicious, but (IMO) they are merely incompetent. (Didn't Heinlen say something about if you assume incompetence instead of evil, you'll be right 99% of the time?) ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:26:27 -0600 Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: > Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, why is it so bad if the > government can tap into my e-mail the same way they do into my phones? > If the government can use the technology to stop one terrorist attack, > or to catch one future greedy CEO, or to break up a drug dealing > operation, why should I care if they can also read my personal e-mail? Because the current President has proven that he doesn't give a damn about individual civil liberties, that's why. > Every aspect of my well being in the USA is based upon the rule of > law. Couldn't one make the argument that the only way this "bugging" > of the Internet could be used against innocent people is if we lose > the rule of law here, but that if we lose the rule of law then the > Internet problems will be insignificant compared to all the others? You're living in a fantasy world. You're assuming that our government will follow its own rules, and I just can't agree with that. And if people start encrypting everything, don't you think the government will look real hard at making encryption illegal? JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/ "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought most encryption is already illegal. Take that fellow in Colorado -- what's his name? Phil something who invented PGP (Pretty Good Privacy)? Didn't he get arrested and put on trial for telling people on the net how to encrypt their stuff? PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #126 ******************************