Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 20 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Single port vmail to wav file Re: Single port vmail to wav file Re: Single port vmail to wav file Re: Single port vmail to wav file Re: Single port vmail to wav file Re: DC cellphone may be overwhelmed Foreign Listings Again Re: Any user reviews of the Magic Jack? How to block a known number or last call received Re: How to block a known number or last call received Payment Processor Breach May Be Largest Ever Tricky Windows Worm Wallops Millions Re: Tricky Windows Worm Wallops Millions ====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by 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 are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 06:55:34 -0600 From: John Schmerold <john@katycomputer.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Single port vmail to wav file Message-ID: <4975C9C6.6010100@katycomputer.com> I am looking for an answering machine that delivers its voicemail message via email with wav file attachment. I recognize I could rig something up with a PC, but don't want all the fuss associated with a PC. Any ideas? I want to keep this under $300. -- ________________________ John Schmerold Katy Computer Systems, Inc. 347 Clarkson Rd Ellisville MO 63011 636-394-1900 v 314-558-8313 f ***** Moderator's Note ***** Perhaps some kind soul will respond with a product that does exactly that and costs $299.99. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:09:36 -0500 From: Carl Navarro <cnavarro@wcnet.org> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Single port vmail to wav file Message-ID: <20r6n4dmf5739proja47ir9pr7k4vacuub@4ax.com> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:48:44 -0500 (EST), John Schmerold <john@katycomputer.com> wrote: >I am looking for an answering machine that delivers its voicemail >message via email with wav file attachment. I recognize I could rig >something up with a PC, but don't want all the fuss associated with a >PC. > >Any ideas? I want to keep this under $300. I think the tears are dry enough to post now. It was a pretty good laugh. How many people would buy a single port unified messaging voice mail? $300 is a reasonable price...for you, but it doesn't even come close to R&D and registration recovery costs, especially for a limited run. Now double that and you can get a Panasonic TVA-50 with LAN card to do that. Or try any one of the search engines for a software solution to an old PC for free or 1/2 of your $300 budget. I pay $38 a year for MaxEmail, a voice mail and fax to email service with CID. Through the magic of the internet, I call forward my business line to a VoIP line, simultaneously ring my VoIP and cell phone, and no answer transfer it to my maxEmail line. If I absolutely wanted to forward all calls to voice mail, I could find something free and just pay the price of the phone call. If you decide that PC answering machines aren't all that bad, here's one that is fairly inexpensive and you can try before you buy. http://www.nch.com.au/ivm/index.html Carl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:41:11 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Single port vmail to wav file Message-ID: <MPG.23e02b21f19d27a29898b4@reader.motzarella.org> In article <20r6n4dmf5739proja47ir9pr7k4vacuub@4ax.com>, cnavarro@wcnet.org says... > > On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:48:44 -0500 (EST), John Schmerold > <john@katycomputer.com> wrote: > > >I am looking for an answering machine that delivers its voicemail > >message via email with wav file attachment. I recognize I could rig > >something up with a PC, but don't want all the fuss associated with a > >PC. > > > >Any ideas? I want to keep this under $300. > > I think the tears are dry enough to post now. It was a pretty good > laugh. > > How many people would buy a single port unified messaging voice mail? > $300 is a reasonable price...for you, but it doesn't even come close > to R&D and registration recovery costs, especially for a limited run. > Now double that and you can get a Panasonic TVA-50 with LAN card to do > that. Or try any one of the search engines for a software solution to > an old PC for free or 1/2 of your $300 budget. > > I pay $38 a year for MaxEmail, a voice mail and fax to email service > with CID. Through the magic of the internet, I call forward my > business line to a VoIP line, simultaneously ring my VoIP and cell > phone, and no answer transfer it to my maxEmail line. If I > absolutely wanted to forward all calls to voice mail, I could find > something free and just pay the price of the phone call. > > If you decide that PC answering machines aren't all that bad, here's > one that is fairly inexpensive and you can try before you buy. > http://www.nch.com.au/ivm/index.html > > Carl $20 a year for MagicJack - it emails mp3 voicemails. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:52:14 -0600 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Single port vmail to wav file Message-ID: <6645152a0901200652l2abdac75w4659df30a4d89b2d@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:55 AM, John Schmerold <john@katycomputer.com> wrote: > I am looking for an answering machine that delivers its voicemail > message via email with wav file attachment. I recognize I could rig > something up with a PC, but don't want all the fuss associated with a > PC. Something like this? http://www.ringcentral.com/voicemail.html Just don't use it more than 30 months. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:58:34 GMT From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Single port vmail to wav file Message-ID: <j3bcn49m4se052rtlcu1fnqdcdbo3b6d2f@4ax.com> John Schmerold <john@katycomputer.com> wrote: >I am looking for an answering machine that delivers its voicemail >message via email with wav file attachment. I recognize I could rig >something up with a PC, but don't want all the fuss associated with a >PC. I've happily used Call Soft along with an el cheapo voice/fax modem and a PC for this function. http://www.mycallsoft.com/ The software is almost overkill for my requirements but it works well. Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can read the entire thread of messages. Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:06:51 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: DC cellphone may be overwhelmed Message-ID: <b6a00df3-1003-4ad2-b822-983fcbe10743@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com> Tues, 11:30 a.m. Representatives for the nation’s largest wireless carriers, AT&T and Verizon Wireless, said customers’ delays in making and receiving phone calls is what they had projected, even with a boost in network capacity. “Things are holding up well so far,” said Mark Siegel, AT&T Mobility spokesman. “There is minor congestion here and there, but nothing unexpected.” Exacerbating the problem is the number of inauguration-goers who are jubilantly sending photos and videos using their cell phones, as well as to post them on the Internet, and to Twitter, sending short-form messages. Mobile Web, e-mail and Twittering “use bandwidth as well,” said Verizon Wireless spokeswoman Debra Lewis. She said the carrier’s network in the D.C. area is “handling three to five times the normal call volume,” but that “even in the most crowded spectator areas nearest the Inauguration stands at the U.S. Capitol, the vast majority of calls are going through on the first attempt.” CTIA, the wireless trade industry association, has asked phone users to minimize that kind of activity, and wait until later to send or e- mail images, because of the network capacity it essentially hogs. for full article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28751495/ [This article was posted on MSNBC at 11:30 am. Traffic will probably increase significantly during and after the new president's speech.] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:51:25 -0500 From: Fred Goldstein <fgoldstein.SeeSigSpambait@wn2.wn.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Foreign Listings Again Message-ID: <20090120185106.12E0E4813C@mailout.easydns.com> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:32:21 -0700, "Fred Atkinson" <fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote, > Approximately six months ago, I relocated to Las Cruces, New Mexico > to accept a position with a company performing a government > contract. > I temporarily set up with Qwest a voicemail only account so that I > could port that number to my VOIP service provider once I got out > here and got settled. > The port was successful. I now have VOIP service on that telephone > number (it is on a well recognized exchange code for Las Cruces, 526 > in particular). Carolina Net is my VOIP provider. > As I did with AT&T in SC and GA, and with Verizon when I was in NC, > I tried to arrange a foreign listing for my local number. As I also > did with AT&T in SC and GA, and with Verizon when I was in NC, I had > to file a complaint with the respective PSCs because AT&T and > Verizon were refusing to provide my directory assistance listing > (which they are required to do under FCC rules). I'm a little unclear as to what you nean by "foreign" listing. Telephone directories are open to all LECs, and the ILEC has to allow CLECs to populate their listing database and give the numbers out to 411 callers. If you're looking to put a Las Cruces number into the Las Cruces directory, it doesn't sound foreign to me. It does mean that somebody has to know how to enter it. > Unlike with when I was in SC, NC, or GA, the NM PSC doesn't seem to > want to meet their responsibility in requiring Qwest to make the > listing. They did contact Qwest on my behalf. When Qwest responded > to them, the story I was given was that Qwest has a confidential > policy which the PSC can not share with me. They require my VOIP > provider to arrange the listing for me. This is a smokescreen if I > ever heard one. > We tried this. Carolina Net tried to get the listing for me but was > told that since my telephone number was out of the coverage area (I > confirmed with Qwest that it is *not* out of the coverage area), > that it was a foreign listing and they would not make the listing > for me. They told Carolina Net that I would have to go to Qwest and > arrange the listing. Qwest again refused. It sounds to me like you've got two screwed-up companies making up tales. Carolina Net is not a New Mexico CLEC. It is a parasitic VoIP operator, meaning that it provides voice services over other providers' broadband services. There's nothing wrong with that, but as a non-CLEC, they don't have the right to port numbers, put entries in phone books, or draw blocks of their own numbers from NANPA. They do all of that via CLECs, from whom they purchase wholesale services. In order to provide you with a (ported) New Mexico number, they have to have a CLEC in New Mexico provide them with service. I don't know who they use, but let's say for the sake of argument that it's Level 3, which does operate there and which provides wholesale service to VoIP operators. In order to port your number, Carolina Net would pass the request to Level 3, who'd enter the port. This is fairly routine, and it worked. As a CLEC, Level 3 has the right to put entries into the 411/DEX database. But does Carolina Net have this process up and running with Qwest? I'm guessing that the bulk of VoIP customers do not want their number listed, so the three-vendor process is not totally routine. It may be that Carolina Net is set up better to deal with with ATT and VZ than with Q, through the same or different CLECs. All of this information is missing from the report. Yes, Qwest can be VERY hard to deal with; I've been involved in some New Mexico cases against them recently. > The NM PSC told me to contact DEX Media (who is the provider of the > local phone book out here). DEX said they would accept a foreign > listing for business, but not for a residence. DEX Media's legal status in an interesting question -- Qwest sold them the directory business, but I'm guessing that the white pages database is still based on Qwest's. I don't know whether DEX is required to directly deal with end users. ... > As per previous discussions on Telecom Digest, we ascertained that > the incumbent LEC is required to accept foreign listings according > to FCC section 51.217(c)(3). Specifically: A LEC shall accept the > listings of those customers served by competing providers for > inclusion in its directory assistance/operator services databases. Yes, but "competing provider" generally refers to CLECs, not the pVoIPos directly. So Carolina Net has to get their CLEC to fix it, and their CLEC might not be set up for this. I had directory listing problems for several years after porting two numbers. The porting-in carrier (Media One -> ATTB -> Comcast) had provisions for "bonding" their order process with the NYNEX -> BA-> VZ directory, but it burped on non-standard listings (a request for name without address on the secondary number). I eventually got it fixed when I found a Comcast guy who could actually do a manual LSR (Local Service Request, the process by which a CLEC enters line-side requests into an ILEC operational support system). Of course had I not known about LSRs, I wouldn't have known to go around the usual order-takers, whose highly automated system didn't quite work as it appeared to. VoIP is a low-margin business, designed for minimal manual intervention, so they might be unprepared to deal with a directory listing in an area they don't do much business in. If you can find out the actual CLEC, that would help. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:55:54 -0800 (PST) From: "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTvalid@Queensbridge.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Any user reviews of the Magic Jack? Message-ID: <b14f4a9d-584f-4894-bba6-08ea7adc8f8e@l16g2000yqo.googlegroups.com> On Jan 20, 12:35 am, Stephen <stephenco...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 19, 9:22 am, "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTva...@Queensbridge.us> > wrote: > > > > > On Jan 17, 10:43 am, Stephen <stephenco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Actually,Onesuiteprepaid calling card rates via local access numbers > > > across the US [are] only 2.5 cents per minute [when] calling a US > > > number and only 1.9 cpm to Canada. The .5 cents and 1.1 cents > > > difference (versus the 3 cents you mentioned) adds up if you make [a > > > lot of] calls. > > > I usually use the toll free number forOneSuiteaccess as local access > > calls here in NYC are billed at 11¢ with tax. > > > If I were to know that myOneSuiteLDX call would [were to?] be long > > talk-length I would use local access # and then get the 2.5CPM. > > Otherwise it is cheaper to pay 2.9CPM for =<3 minutes. > > > I usually useOneSuitefor my LOCAL calls here in NYC unless I am > > calling totally free [of cost] via GrandCentral.com > > Oh I didn't know Onesuite local access access in NYC are billed by > your local phone provider. Are you using this NYC numbers > ->6463529215,6462173791 > > Anyhow if thats the case then you are doing a good job of maximizing > your savings. I don't know what number I'm using, but all local calls are billed at 9¢ plus tax or c. 11¢ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:52:47 -0600 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: How to block a known number or last call received Message-ID: <6645152a0901201652x5ed17a4dg7c2731ea3445dd7@mail.gmail.com> Once upon a time I seem to recall a vertical service code (i.e. "star" code) that would allow a telephone subscriber to block the number of the last caller. I cannot find reference to this anywhere. What's going on is I'm receiving nuisance calls several times a day from a number in Florida. I have complained to my state's PUC, but my experience has been not much really happens, so I'd like just to block this number. I have contacted my telephone provider, but haven't heard back. While we're on the topic, is there such a creature as a telephone that won't ring if a call from a certain number comes across? Thanks, John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA ***** Moderator's Note ***** I have a device called "Person-To-Person" which allows me to choose if certain area codes, exchange codes, or specific numbers go to the "phone" jack or to the "answering machine" jack. I have it hooked up so that numbers I don't want to answer are diverted to a phone without a ringer: in other words, I never know they come in unless I look at the caller id display. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:37:54 -0600 From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: How to block a known number or last call received Message-ID: <yZudnQXeOMu9BevUnZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d@posted.visi> John Mayson wrote: > Once upon a time I seem to recall a vertical service code (i.e. "star" > code) that would allow a telephone subscriber to block the number of > the last caller. I cannot find reference to this anywhere. Qwest calls it "Call Rejection", and it is an extra-cost service (like CID). *60 on, *80 off, for up to 15 numbers. Though it looks like for out-of-area calls you need "Call Rejection-Enhanced". *78 toggles, for up to 25 numbers. Your telco might call it something else. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:07:41 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Payment Processor Breach May Be Largest Ever Message-ID: <p0624081fc59c31f43c3f@[10.0.1.6]> Payment Processor Breach May Be Largest Ever By Brian Krebs January 20, 2009 A data breach last year at Princeton, N.J., payment processor Heartland Payment Systems may have compromised tens of millions of credit and debit card transactions, the company said today. If accurate, such figures may make the Heartland incident one of the largest data breaches ever reported. Robert Baldwin, Heartland's president and chief financial officer, said the company, which processes payments for more than 250,000 businesses, began receiving fraudulent activity reports late last year from MasterCard and Visa on cards that had all been used at merchants which rely on Heartland to process payments. Baldwin said 40 percent of transactions the company processes are from small to mid-sized restaurants across the country. He declined to name any well-known establishments or retail clients that may have been affected by the breach. ... http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/01/payment_processor_breach_may_b.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:59:08 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Tricky Windows Worm Wallops Millions Message-ID: <p0624084bc59c4d6fad1a@[10.0.1.6]> Tricky Windows Worm Wallops Millions By Brian Krebs January 16, 2009 A sneaky computer worm that uses a virtual Swiss army knife of attack techniques has infected millions of Microsoft Windows PCs, and appears to be spreading at a fairly rapid pace, security experts warn. Also, while infected PCs could be used for a variety of criminal purposes -- from relaying spam to hosting scam Web sites -- there are signs that this whole mess may be an attempt to further spread so-called "scareware," which uses fake security alerts to frighten consumers into purchasing bogus computer security software. The worm, called "Downadup" and "Conficker" by different anti-virus companies, attacks a security hole in a networking component found in most Windows systems. According to estimates from Finnish anti-virus maker F-Secure Corp., the worm has infected between 2.4 million and 8.9 million computers during the last four days alone. If accurate, those are fairly staggering numbers for a worm that first surfaced in late November. Microsoft issued an emergency patch to fix the flaw back in October, but many systems likely remain dangerously exposed. One reason for this is because businesses will generally test patches before deploying them on internal networks to ensure the updates don't break custom software applications. In the meantime, an infected laptop plugged into a vulnerable corporate network can quickly spread the contagion to all unpatched systems inside that network. But the worm also has methods for infecting systems that are already patched against the Windows vulnerability. According to an analysis last week by Symantec, the latest versions of Downadup copy themselves to all removable or mapped drives on the host computer or network. This means that if an infected system has a USB stick inserted into it, that USB stick will carry the infection over to the next Windows machine that reads it. That's an old trick, but apparently one that is apparently still very effective. ... http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/01/tricky_windows_worm_wallops_mi.html ***** Moderator's Note ***** I guess I'm out of date on the Windows OS: why does a file on a USB stick pose a threat? This may seem an obvious question, but I trained in the days when a program could only be started by operator command or by an already-running program. Yet, with this and other worms, it seems that executable files magically start themselves just by the fact that they're located in the Windows file system. Does Windows automatically start certain types of files, no matter where they're found? Are these worm files started by "Internet Exploder" or other commonly used applications? Or are the reports just glossing over something that users are doing? Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 05:28:22 GMT From: tlvp <PmUiRsGcE.TtHlEvSpE@att.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Tricky Windows Worm Wallops Millions Message-ID: <op.un3dh5atwqrt3j@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:59:25 -0500, after a post by Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>, the Moderator wrote: > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > I guess I'm out of date on the Windows OS: why does a file on a USB > stick pose a threat? This may seem an obvious question, but I trained > in the days when a program could only be started by operator command > or by an already-running program. Yet, with this and other worms, it > seems that executable files magically start themselves just by the > fact that they're located in the Windows file system. Know how an Audio CD or a video DVD or a software installation disk just start themselves right up when you stick 'em in the tray? You can add an autostart.inf file to a USB stick to make it, too, start itself right up when you plug it into a USB socket. Of course, the paranoid will always be holding down a [Shift] key to prevent such unexpected start-ups -- if they've been bitten before (like I've been -- explains why I'm paranoid :-) ), but others ... . > Does Windows automatically start certain types of files, no matter > where they're found? ... Yup. So does MacOS. I'd be surprised if other OSes don't as well. Autostart.inf is one mechanism -- I bet there are others, too. > ... Are these worm files started by "Internet > Exploder" or other commonly used applications? Or are the reports just > glossing over something that users are doing? Nope, it's the OS itself that detects, reads, and obeys the commands of the Autostart.inf files. > Bill Horne > Temporary Moderator I suspect others with a better grasp of the mechanism at play here will be able to provide further enlightenment. Cheers, -- tlvp ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by 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. The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. Contact information: Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 781-784-7287 bill at horne dot net Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom Unsubscribe: mailto:telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom 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) RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html For syndication examples see http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest Copyright (C) 2008 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of The Telecom digest (13 messages) ******************************