Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 285 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: New top-level domain names are coming Re: New top-level domain names are coming Re: New top-level domain names are coming Re: New top-level domain names are coming Re: New top-level domain names are coming Re: New top-level domain names are coming Re: New top-level domain names are coming Re: New top-level domain names are coming Re: Comcast takes steps against botnets Re: Comcast takes steps against botnets Re: Comcast takes steps against botnets Re: Comcast takes steps against botnets Re: New Internationalized domain names are coming Re: Telephone number spoofing Re: Telephone number spoofing Re: Telephone number spoofing Re: Telephone number spoofing Re: Telephone number spoofing Re: Telephone number spoofing Re: Telephone number spoofing Re: Telephone number spoofing Re: Telephone number spoofing Re: Telephone number spoofing Re: Telephone number spoofing Shorted phone lines auto-dialing 911? Re: Shorted phone lines auto-dialing 911? Re: Shorted phone lines auto-dialing 911? GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars? ====== 28 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: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:25:46 -0500 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: New top-level domain names are coming Message-ID: <6645152a0910152125x22494e01j5633602de141ffdf@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:32 AM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: >>P.S. I've got dibs on "horne": my email will be wildbill@horne in >>2012. ;-) > > I hope you have the $185,000 application fee. Can you imagine what an expense this will be to large corporations. Take Coca-Cola for instance. I'm sure in order to protect their trademarks they'll need to apply for: cocacola, coke, dietcoke, mrpibb, sprite, etc. When I first heard about this I thought I'd go as high as $100 to snag mayson. But when I learned what the price tag was I decided I could live without it. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:43:58 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: New top-level domain names are coming Message-ID: <4AD7FA0E.4010909@thadlabs.com> On 10/15/2009 11:29 AM, John Mayson wrote: > I thought the idea was people and corporations could create their own > TLD at an enormous cost (6 figures). Yowee! Somehow I missed what the cost will be -- probably won't be too many domain squatters. :-) > If I were to create mayson I would still need something in front of it. > Perhaps john@mail.mayson. Not really. Depends how the system(s) and internal routing is/are setup. Many of us don't require, for example, "www." to reach the webserver (or "ftp." for the ftp server, etc.) at our domains since the port(s) (80 for (most) HTTP) is/are known. The fine folks at MIT had a neat idea years ago that somehow never took off: "web." instead of "www." -- two syllables ("web dot") instead of ten syllables ("double-you double-you double-you dot") and actually more explanatory and intuitive. Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:39:33 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: New top-level domain names are coming Message-ID: <op.u1w2n7tho63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:43:58 -0400, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2009 11:29 AM, John Mayson wrote: >> I thought the idea was people and corporations could create their own >> TLD at an enormous cost (6 figures). > > Yowee! Somehow I missed what the cost will be -- probably won't be too > many domain squatters. :-) > >> If I were to create mayson I would still need something in front of it. >> Perhaps john@mail.mayson. > > Not really. Depends how the system(s) and internal routing is/are setup. > Many of us don't require, for example, "www." to reach the webserver (or > "ftp." for the ftp server, etc.) at our domains since the port(s) (80 for > (most) HTTP) is/are known. > > The fine folks at MIT had a neat idea years ago that somehow never took > off: "web." instead of "www." -- two syllables ("web dot") instead of ten > syllables ("double-you double-you double-you dot") and actually more > explanatory and intuitive. Not to put too fine a point on it, I pronounce "www." in only five syllables: "tri-ple duh-bya dot". Still way more than just two, of course ... . Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP ***** Moderator's Note ***** I don't think anyone worries about "www" anymore. Most browsers try adding the subdomain automagically if they get a 404 on just the domain name: if "billhorne.com" doesn't work, they'll try "www.billhorne.com" without the user needing to do anything. Anyway, I just say "dub dub dub", and everyone knows what I mean. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:20:25 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: New top-level domain names are coming Message-ID: <pan.2009.10.17.00.20.22.455049@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:43:58 -0700, Thad Floryan wrote: > On 10/15/2009 11:29 AM, John Mayson wrote: >> I thought the idea was people and corporations could create their own >> TLD at an enormous cost (6 figures). > > Yowee! Somehow I missed what the cost will be -- probably won't be too > many domain squatters. :-) > >> If I were to create mayson I would still need something in front of it. >> Perhaps john@mail.mayson. > > Not really. Depends how the system(s) and internal routing is/are setup. > Many of us don't require, for example, "www." to reach the webserver (or > "ftp." for the ftp server, etc.) at our domains since the port(s) (80 for > (most) HTTP) is/are known. > > The fine folks at MIT had a neat idea years ago that somehow never took > off: "web." instead of "www." -- two syllables ("web dot") instead of ten > syllables ("double-you double-you double-you dot") and actually more > explanatory and intuitive. AFAIK "www" is just a DNS convention to indicate a web server - it can be anything you like and still work exactly the same. It is the "http" that tells things to use the (default) Hypertext TransporT Protocol for the connection as a web page - and default to TCP Port 80 if there is no alternate port specified. People get blinkered by convention in these things. -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. ***** Moderator's Note ***** "www" is a subdomain. At the start of the web, http servers were usually separate machines, and putting "www" in front of a domain name made it easy to divert web traffic to a different server than a company's regular email/gopher/finger/ machine. In like manner, "ftp" is commonly used to point file-transer-protocol traffic to a separate server, mostly for security reasons: there's less chance of mixing private and public files if ftp requests go to a separate machine. It's almost unimportant now: most companies with a web presence will either divert web (i.e., tcp port 80) traffic to their web servers at their firewall, or declare a CNAME in DNS that causes DNS to return the "web" address when someone asks for the domain without "www." in front of it (it's "supposed" to be the other way around, but c'est la vie). Since DNS isn't able to distinguish TCP port numbers, it's common to provide an MX record which will divert email traffic away from the "web" address. Clear as mud, right? ;-) Bill Horne Moderator Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:40:39 +0000 (UTC) From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: New top-level domain names are coming Message-ID: <hbb7an$glq$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> In article <pan.2009.10.17.00.20.22.455049@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com>, Bill Horne wrote: >"www" is a subdomain. Only rarely, if ever. Normally it's just a leaf. >At the start of the web, http servers were usually separate machines, >and putting "www" in front of a domain name made it easy to divert >web traffic to a different server than a company's regular >email/gopher/finger/ machine. That server being the one whose name was "www", or more fully, "www.example.org". >It's almost unimportant now: most companies with a web presence will >either divert web (i.e., tcp port 80) traffic to their web servers at >their firewall, or declare a CNAME in DNS that causes DNS to return >the "web" address when someone asks for the domain without "www." in >front of it You can't have a CNAME record at the apex of a zone. With hindsight, it's clear that Tim B-L should have used SRV records. The only problem is that SRV records hadn't been invented yet. The earliest proposal for SRV that I can find, RFC 2052, is from 1996, when the Web was already seven years old; its "introductory example" starts with a URL. (And I don't fault Tim for not having invented SRV records himself; it would have taken at least that long for enough name servers to be replaced to make them usable.) SRV didn't become a Proposed Standard until 2000, long after the Web took off to the point that it was no longer feasible to make a wholesale change in the way URIs were interpreted. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:38:23 -0500 From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: New top-level domain names are coming Message-ID: <6645152a0910162038n5f9d6a6dxaf5dde8b37e2b44@mail.gmail.com> Granted I'm not an Internet expert. I've just used it for nearly 25 years. But the point I was trying to make was if I registered the top-level domain (TLD) "mayson" I think I would still need a hostname in an email address. john@mayson would be analogous to john@com. Granted if I controlled "mayson" I could say nothing existed below it, but I would think this would cause problems because mail servers wouldn't know what to do with it. Did I mean mayson.com? mayson.us? What if I was able to snag, say, "cnn" as a TLD (unlikely, but what if I did)? If someone accidently sent an email to wolf.blitzer@cnn would I get it? John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:02:24 -0400 From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: New top-level domain names are coming Message-ID: <barmar-2FA3BC.02022417102009@news.eternal-september.org> In article <hbb7an$glq$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>, wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote: > In article <pan.2009.10.17.00.20.22.455049@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com>, > Bill Horne wrote: > > >"www" is a subdomain. > > Only rarely, if ever. Normally it's just a leaf. A leaf is a subdomain. It just doesn't have any subdomains of its own. Every node in the DNS hierarchy is a domain, and exept for the root they're also all subdomains. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:48:23 GMT From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: New top-level domain names are coming Message-ID: <hb9mi7$784$4@news.eternal-september.org> Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote: > >I'm curious what others think about how, or if, this will affect telecom. They're asking for trouble. They assume that there is ONE trademark per name, and that's totally TOTALLY wrong. For instance, many companies share the Johnson's trademark -- a foot soap company, a shampoo company, and a wax company, to name just three. All kinds of companies are like that. GE, NBC, Apple, Zenith, ABC, etc. -- "You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco" Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:04:47 GMT From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Comcast takes steps against botnets Message-ID: <hb9k0f$784$2@news.eternal-september.org> AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote: >An Associated Press story in this morning's paper by Deborah Yao >headlined "Pop-ups warn of infections" describes a warning service being >tested in Denver starting this week in which Comcast automatically >alerts customers whose PCs they believe may have been co-opted by a >botnet that this may be the case, and offers them a site with tips on >how to remove virus infections. Comcast actually shut down email from my router to a mail account about a year ago. I had set up my router to mail me logs and then a housemate got hit with a zombie and the router began sending out hundreds of messages to warn me about the blocked attacks. Comcast was convinced that a machine on our network was making zombie connections when actually it wasn't. It was just the router. Now I can't use the router to send me logs anymore. I can't convince Comcast otherwise. -- "You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco" Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:45:26 -0500 From: "GlowingBlueMist" <GlowingBlueMist@truely.invalid> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Comcast takes steps against botnets Message-ID: <4ad8bf75$0$65850$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com> David Kaye wrote: > AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote: > >> An Associated Press story in this morning's paper by Deborah Yao >> headlined "Pop-ups warn of infections" describes a warning service >> being tested in Denver starting this week in which Comcast >> automatically alerts customers whose PCs they believe may have been >> co-opted by a botnet that this may be the case, and offers them a >> site with tips on how to remove virus infections. > > Comcast actually shut down email from my router to a mail account > about a year ago. I had set up my router to mail me logs and then a > housemate got hit with a zombie and the router began sending out > hundreds of messages to warn me about the blocked attacks. Comcast > was convinced that a machine on our network was making zombie > connections when actually it wasn't. It was just the router. Now I > can't use the router to send me logs anymore. I can't convince > Comcast otherwise. Check the Email setup in your router. You may be able to bypass Comcast's block by changing the "From" and or "Subject" line. On some that include the LAN address as part of the outbound info you may also need to change your router's LAN to another subnet, as in changing 192.168.1.1 to something like 192.168.2.1. An alternative that I use is to create one of those throw away Email address' at one of the free email sites, like Google, or Hotmail (which now allows POP3 access for everyone). Let the router use that as the email server to contact rather than one of Comcast's email hosts. I have numerous email accounts with 5 different email servers. One of which is being used by a Linux file server to send me reports on what is going on in the box. For just the reason you experienced, reports too numerous to count during a possible emergency or confused server is why it's reports all go to an account created just for it. That way should the worst happen and the account gets blocked , I can close or ignore that account and open another for future reports once the server problem is fixed. ***** Moderator's Note ***** I'll add some other options: 1. Consider paying for a business account. They're much easier to talk to on the business side of Comcast, and you'll be able to set something up, perhaps with a "tag" in the subject or in an "X-" header, that identifies the automated emails as such. 2. Check if your paging email address can accept mail sent directly from your router. Some will, most won't, but it's worth a shot. 3. Send emails on a non-standard port. There are services available which will allow you to send emails on the "high" TCP port numbers that Comcast isn't likely to choke: you'll need to program your router to connect to an SMTP gateway on the new port number. 4. Use a VPN (Virtual Private Network). If you have an account at a cluefull ISP, you'll probably be able to set up a VPN tunnel for outgoing email. Currently, Comcast isn't blocking these, although that may change. HTH. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:42:04 -0400 From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Comcast takes steps against botnets Message-ID: <barmar-119A86.19420416102009@news.eternal-september.org> In article <4ad8bf75$0$65850$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>, "GlowingBlueMist" <GlowingBlueMist@truely.invalid> wrote: > David Kaye wrote: > > AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote: > > > >> An Associated Press story in this morning's paper by Deborah Yao > >> headlined "Pop-ups warn of infections" describes a warning service > >> being tested in Denver starting this week in which Comcast > >> automatically alerts customers whose PCs they believe may have been > >> co-opted by a botnet that this may be the case, and offers them a > >> site with tips on how to remove virus infections. > > > > Comcast actually shut down email from my router to a mail account > > about a year ago. I had set up my router to mail me logs and then a > > housemate got hit with a zombie and the router began sending out > > hundreds of messages to warn me about the blocked attacks. Comcast > > was convinced that a machine on our network was making zombie > > connections when actually it wasn't. It was just the router. Now I > > can't use the router to send me logs anymore. I can't convince > > Comcast otherwise. > > Check the Email setup in your router. You may be able to bypass > Comcast's block by changing the "From" and or "Subject" line. On some When Comcast suspects you're a spam cannon, they block port 25 on your router. This block doesn't care about the content of your email. The expected solution is that you'll configure your mail client to connect to your SMTP server on port 587 or 465, the standard ports for Message Submission Service. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:10:01 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Comcast takes steps against botnets Message-ID: <4AD8D319.2080104@thadlabs.com> On 10/16/2009 4:04 AM, David Kaye wrote: > AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote: > >> An Associated Press story in this morning's paper by Deborah Yao >> headlined "Pop-ups warn of infections" describes a warning service being >> tested in Denver starting this week in which Comcast automatically >> alerts customers whose PCs they believe may have been co-opted by a >> botnet that this may be the case, and offers them a site with tips on >> how to remove virus infections. > > Comcast actually shut down email from my router to a mail account about a > year ago. I had set up my router to mail me logs and then a housemate got hit > with a zombie and the router began sending out hundreds of messages to warn me > about the blocked attacks. Comcast was convinced that a machine on our > network was making zombie connections when actually it wasn't. It was just > the router. Now I can't use the router to send me logs anymore. I can't > convince Comcast otherwise. I had to get Comcast last year when the frequency(ies) used by Sprint Broadband were repurposed by the FCC. Overall, no problems and the faster down-/up-load speeds are really nice (for example, I downloaded the Win7 RC DVD ISO from Microsoft in just 12 minutes :-) However, Comcast about 6-9 months ago began blocking port 25. My home firewall sends logs to me (using port 25) through a system at an offsite colo center and those became blocked. Switching to port 587 (email injection) solved that problem and may work for you, too. Another solution may be an "internal" (to you, on your LAN) relay system that forwards email from port 25 to port 587 using something like a Sheevaplug. A Sheevaplug is a fist-sized Linux appliance using only 4W to 5W of power and sports a GigE port, HS USB 2.0 port, JTAG console port, and a 1.2 GHz ARM CPU; a few pix of one of mine: http://thadlabs.com/PIX/SheevaPlug_first.jpg http://thadlabs.com/PIX/SheevaPlug_labelled.jpg http://thadlabs.com/PIX/SheevaPlug_underside.jpg http://thadlabs.com/PIX/SheevaPlug_ext_HD.jpg as of this moment, that system: root@debian:~# date Fri Oct 16 19:59:10 UTC 2009 root@debian:~# uptime 19:59:14 up 75 days, 10:33, 1 user, load average: 0.09, 0.13, 0.09 root@debian:~# uname -a Linux debian 2.6.22.18 #1 Thu Mar 19 14:46:22 IST 2009 armv5tejl GNU/Linux root@debian:~# cat /etc/issue Ubuntu 9.04 \n \l as far as performance goes, that SheevaPlug way outperforms a minicomputer DECsystem-2020 compiling and running many of my programs. Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:12:48 GMT From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: New Internationalized domain names are coming Message-ID: <hb9kff$784$3@news.eternal-september.org> Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote: >Clicking on the URL inline in your message caused all my email clients >to state (paraphrased) "the URL is not valid and cannot be loaded". This is so odd. I'm using News Xpress for Windows 3.1 (yes, it's ancient 15-year old software!) and when I double-clicked on the URL in the previous message it loaded the page just fine. That's Windows' backward compatibility for you... -- "You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco" Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:19:31 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Telephone number spoofing Message-ID: <Uh%Bm.143649$Y83.98824@newsfe21.iad> Scott Dorsey wrote: > > Most of that stuff is already illegal anyway. If they were legitimate > callers, they wouldn't need to hide behind fake caller-ID. What you need > is for the existing laws to start getting enforced. > --scott With today's FCC that is not about to happen. Date: 16 Oct 2009 11:24:36 -0400 From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Telephone number spoofing Message-ID: <hba37k$q16$1@panix2.panix.com> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: >Scott Dorsey wrote: > >> Most of that stuff is already illegal anyway. If they were legitimate >> callers, they wouldn't need to hide behind fake caller-ID. What you need >> is for the existing laws to start getting enforced. > >With today's FCC that is not about to happen. We don't have today's FCC, we have the FCC of the Reagan era. Write your congressman and the president and demand a real FCC again, please. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:31:21 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Telephone number spoofing Message-ID: <uK4Cm.78029$944.65019@newsfe09.iad> Scott Dorsey wrote: > Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: > >>Scott Dorsey wrote: >> >> >>>Most of that stuff is already illegal anyway. If they were legitimate >>>callers, they wouldn't need to hide behind fake caller-ID. What you need >>>is for the existing laws to start getting enforced. >> >>With today's FCC that is not about to happen. > > > We don't have today's FCC, we have the FCC of the Reagan era. > > Write your congressman and the president and demand a real FCC again, please. > --scott So, neither Bush 1 or 2, Clinton wouldn't change it. And, same for the current president? Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:30:47 -0500 (CDT) From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Telephone number spoofing Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.0910161625450.2991@Calculus-2.local> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Sam Spade wrote: > Scott Dorsey wrote: >> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: >> >> We don't have today's FCC, we have the FCC of the Reagan era. >> >> Write your congressman and the president and demand a real FCC again, >> please. >> --scott > > So, neither Bush 1 or 2, Clinton wouldn't change it. And, same for the > current president? Now there you go again. (quoting Reagan) I don't think it's a Democrat versus Republican issue and I think it infects more than just the FCC. [In] everything from regulating Wall Street to patroling Main Street, it seems we, as a nation, have lost the will to hold people accountable for their actions and [to] tell them they cannot do something (sex offenders excepted of course). As long as people continue to point fingers at the other party nothing is really going to change. Remember, much of the deregulation that took place during the 1980s had its genesis during the Carter administration and had bipartisan support. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:18:22 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Telephone number spoofing Message-ID: <yX8Cm.146859$Y83.128323@newsfe21.iad> John Mayson wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Sam Spade wrote: > >> Scott Dorsey wrote: >> >>> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> We don't have today's FCC, we have the FCC of the Reagan era. >>> >>> Write your congressman and the president and demand a real FCC again, >>> please. >>> --scott >> >> >> So, neither Bush 1 or 2, Clinton wouldn't change it. And, same for >> the current president? > > > Now there you go again. (quoting Reagan) > > I don't think it's a Democrat versus Republican issue and I think it > infects more than just the FCC. [In] everything from regulating Wall > Street to patroling Main Street, it seems we, as a nation, have lost > the will to hold people accountable for their actions and [to] tell > them they cannot do something (sex offenders excepted of course). > > As long as people continue to point fingers at the other party nothing > is really going to change. Remember, much of the deregulation that > took place during the 1980s had its genesis during the Carter > administration and had bipartisan support. > > John Caller ID had its exhaustive hearings (circa 1995) during the Clinton Administration. The initial order of the FCC was quite good in that it got the ball rolling by exercising federal supremacy. But, the FCC reserved the "PBX" paradox for later consideration, which never happened. That opened the door for spoofing. Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:22:09 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Telephone number spoofing Message-ID: <lk%Bm.143650$Y83.94325@newsfe21.iad> Scott Dorsey wrote: > > Caller-ID is not trustworthy information. You cannot expect it to be. Well, sometimes it is not trustworthy. But, for the typical subscriber with simple, line-side origination, it is quite trustworthy. What percentage of the typical called party's caller id is spoofed? I am sure it is well below 1/10 of 1 percent. Date: 16 Oct 2009 11:27:47 -0400 From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Telephone number spoofing Message-ID: <hba3dj$4t0$1@panix2.panix.com> Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote: > Scott Dorsey wrote: >> >> Caller-ID is not trustworthy information. You cannot expect it to be. > > Well, sometimes it is not trustworthy. But, for the typical > subscriber with simple, line-side origination, it is quite > trustworthy. Sure, but how do you know you're getting a call from them? > What percentage of the typical called party's caller id is spoofed? > I am sure it is well below 1/10 of 1 percent. Probably about half the calls we get at my house are from politicians, people selling car warranties, skip tracers looking for the (decade-gone) former owner of the house and churches and the FOP begging for money. Perhaps half of those calls have spoofed caller ID. So I'd say about 25%. We're in the DNC list too... it might be higher if we were not. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ***** Moderator's Note ***** Scott, I suggest that you take one for the team, and keep track of the spoofed numbers, the organizations which are calling, and the contact number(s) they give out. Please send us a list. Bill Horne Moderator Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:33:06 -0700 From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Telephone number spoofing Message-ID: <6M4Cm.78033$944.57620@newsfe09.iad> > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Scott, > > I suggest that you take one for the team, and keep track of the > spoofed numbers, the organizations which are calling, and the contact > number(s) they give out. Please send us a list. > > Bill Horne > Moderator > Great plan. We sure don't have that problem here. The few that might be phony never get answered anyway. In fact, we don't answer any calls except those from known IDs. Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:15:41 -0500 From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Telephone number spoofing Message-ID: <wK-dnfK9OfJrfEXXnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@posted.visi> Scott Dorsey wrote: > Probably about half the calls we get at my house are from politicians, > people selling car warranties, skip tracers looking for the > (decade-gone) former owner of the house and churches and the FOP > begging for money. Perhaps half of those calls have spoofed caller > ID. So I'd say about 25%. We're in the DNC list too... it might be > higher if we were not. Interesting. I rarely see calls that are obviously spoofed (impossible or clearly false number). I just scrolled back my CID, and there weren't any in the last 100 calls, but I don't remember any in months (and I do look at the CID before answering, so I do notice). A fair number of CID-blocked calls (usually the sleaziest scams are CID-blocked), and some with no name lookup (mostly cellphones, I think), and an occasional call where the number showing is an 800 number (those calls may be irritating, but I wouldn't call them "spoofed"). Political calls sometimes have odd CIDs, but that's mostly because companies with multiple phone lines sometimes lend their offices to pols for phone banking. Dave Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:20:13 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Telephone number spoofing Message-ID: <4AD8D57D.6000003@thadlabs.com> On 10/16/2009 7:22 AM, Sam Spade wrote: > Scott Dorsey wrote: > >> Caller-ID is not trustworthy information. You cannot expect it to be. > > Well, sometimes it is not trustworthy. But, for the typical subscriber > with simple, line-side origination, it is quite trustworthy. > > What percentage of the typical called party's caller id is spoofed? I > am sure it is well below 1/10 of 1 percent. I'd say 50% of the calls to my cell phone are spoofed. I see stuff like: - my number, obviously impossible - 800-###-#### (maybe it's a callback number, but I never answer these or similar ones with the other toll-free prefixes (888, etc.) - 000-000-0000, 555-555-5555 and similar with all digits repeating, but "5" seems the most common Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:11:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Horne <hornetd@gmail.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Telephone number spoofing Message-ID: <195fb4d3-f504-4581-b887-c1f52d67a6dc@l9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> On Oct 15, 9:45 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: > Tom Horne  <horn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Can anyone explain, using [layman's] terminology, how callers get > >their phone number to show up as [that of] another subscriber or a > >non-existent telephone number?  What would be the cost of putting an > >end to this capability?  Does anyone know of a cost-effective way of > >avoiding receiving calls that are falsely numbered? > > Caller-ID is not trustworthy information.  You cannot expect it to be. > > When you connect to the telco with a trunk line, you send it the > caller-ID information on the line.  You can send it anything you > want.  It's polite to send it correct information, but the telco > doesn't check to see if it is valid. > > >I often get such calls at the fire house where I volunteer, from bill > >collectors and sales types.  I only learn they are spoofed when I try > >to call back to get them to take the number off of their database.  I > >get to turn those over to Department of Information Systems Technology > >(DIST) personnel and they must do something about them because I get > >very few repeats. > > Why would you call them back?  They're already violating the law, to > expect that they'll be polite and take you off the list is foolish. > > >Obviously there has to be some way to put a stop to this nonsense. > >The real question is how much will it cost and who will pay. > > Most of that stuff is already illegal anyway.  If they were legitimate > callers, they wouldn't need to hide behind fake caller-ID.  What you need > is for the existing laws to start getting enforced. Scott, I call back because it is one of my duties. If they answer I try to get them to take the fire station telephone number off of the data base on the grounds that it is unlawful to call a Public Safety answering point using any form of automated equipment. I've never had one I reached fail to comply. If the number was spoofed I turn the matter over to the telephone system management office of the county's Department of Information Systems Technology (DIST). As I said in my original posting they must do something about it because I do not get the same bozos over again like I do at home. -- Tom Horne Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:12:50 -0700 From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Shorted phone lines auto-dialing 911? Message-ID: <siegman-AD2EB5.10122016102009@news.stanford.edu> Comcast provides the Internet telephone service for three numbers in our large aging house. Three ports on the Comcast modem feed a web of aging twisted pairs that run all around the house, some of them across the roof, some of them in ancient conduits in the concrete slab foundation. When the massive rainstorm hit the SF Bay Area last week, line A held up fine; line B began developing horrible audio crackling on conversations during the day, then went dead in the early evening; and we didn't observe what happened on line C except that it definitely went dead at some point in the evening. (The modem ports themselves, if you unplugged the house wiring and plugged in a single phone into each of them in succession, all remained fine.) The mystery observation was a police car with two nice officers in our driveway in the middle of the first night, reporting a 911 call on line C, and insisting that protocol required that they check directly with the person sleeping in the room where the only phone using line C was connected. A second 911 call from line C was also logged and transmitted to us by email the following morning, when lines B and C were still dead and remained dead all the following day. Did Comcast do this? (They say, no way.) Can shorted out lines auto-dial 911? Other hypotheses? (We have no auto-alarm systems of any kind in our house.) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:51:23 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Shorted phone lines auto-dialing 911? Message-ID: <op.u1w27xcjo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:12:50 -0400, AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote: > Comcast provides the Internet telephone service for three numbers in > our large aging house. Three ports on the Comcast modem feed a web of > aging twisted pairs that run all around the house, some of them across > the roof, some of them in ancient conduits in the concrete slab > foundation. > > When the massive rainstorm hit the SF Bay Area last week, line A held > up fine; line B began developing horrible audio crackling on > conversations during the day, then went dead in the early evening; and > we didn't observe what happened on line C except that it definitely > went dead at some point in the evening. > > (The modem ports themselves, if you unplugged the house wiring and > plugged in a single phone into each of them in succession, all > remained fine.) > > The mystery observation was a police car with two nice officers in our > driveway in the middle of the first night, reporting a 911 call on > line C, and insisting that protocol required that they check directly > with the person sleeping in the room where the only phone using line C > was connected. > > A second 911 call from line C was also logged and transmitted to us by > email the following morning, when lines B and C were still dead and > remained dead all the following day. > > Did Comcast do this? (They say, no way.) Can shorted out lines > auto-dial 911? Other hypotheses? > > (We have no auto-alarm systems of any kind in our house.) A very off-the-wall conjecture, based on my ability (in the past) to "pulse-dial" numbers by carefully timed tapping on the hook switch: *if* some portion of the local loop for line C were to manifest the sort of audio "crackling" described in the OP for line B, and if this crackling were due to circuit opening/shorting, and if the timing were just right, so as to emulated the dial- pulses for a 9, a 1, and another 1, then just maybe it would ring through as a call to 911 on line C. *Maybe*. More likely not, but I had to offer this. Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:13:05 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Shorted phone lines auto-dialing 911? Message-ID: <pan.2009.10.17.06.13.02.37050@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:51:23 -0400, tlvp wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:12:50 -0400, AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote: > >> Comcast provides the Internet telephone service for three numbers in our >> large aging house. Three ports on the Comcast modem feed a web of aging >> twisted pairs that run all around the house, some of them across the >> roof, some of them in ancient conduits in the concrete slab foundation. .......... >> Did Comcast do this? (They say, no way.) Can shorted out lines >> auto-dial 911? Other hypotheses? >> >> (We have no auto-alarm systems of any kind in our house.) > > A very off-the-wall conjecture, based on my ability (in the past) to > "pulse-dial" numbers by carefully timed tapping on the hook switch: > > if some portion of the local loop for line C were to manifest the sort > of audio "crackling" described in the OP for line B, and if this > crackling were due to circuit opening/shorting, and if the timing were > just right, so as to emulated the dial- pulses for a 9, a 1, and another > 1, then just maybe it would ring through as a call to 911 on line C. > > *Maybe*. More likely not, but I had to offer this. Cheers, > My VoIP router has pre-programmed short-dial codes in it as defaults, perhaps there is something similar in these boxes calling 911 from a single digit (misinterpreted because of the noise) and then a pause? -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:57:29 -0800 From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: GM/NCL conspiracy against streetcars? Message-ID: <hbbfa5$nth$1@blue.rahul.net> John Levine wrote: > For commuter railroads, the biggest problem was competition from > highways that were publicly funded and paid no taxes. I agree > that streetcards were killed by the well known NCL conspiracy > between GM and oil companies. This is long since disproven, see: http://www.lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf http://cosmo.pasadena.ca.us/stan/ul/GM-et-al.html http://www.erha.org/plot.htm (Invalid link deleted in archive copy) 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 Bill Horne. 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 moderated by Bill Horne. 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: 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 Copyright (C) 2009 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 (28 messages)