Today, I received a scam letter - a real one, on paper through the post!
It's certainly many years since I have - if ever!

It's basically the "Nigerian email" one (though that often claimed to be
from some prince). It'd be comic if it wasn't (as they all are) a
serious attempt to scam:

It's from "... Managing Director at HSBC Global Private Banking, Hong
Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited." It tells of a huge
amount of money someone's left there, and he's wanting me to help him
get it out as I have the same surname as the person. (OK, mine's
_moderately_ unusual - I think I'm the only one in Kent - but it's far
from unique, especially around Nottingham.) It doesn't quite go as far
as asking me to send him money needed to bribe people to get the money
out (that was the "traditional" Nigerian scam), but does ask me to
contact him - at his @aol.com address! (If I had, I'm sure such requests
would follow.) Oh, and "I asked my wife who is on holiday in Great
Britain ... to help me post this letter". (Which came in a preprinted -
1st class! - envelope, not a stamp.) Contains plenty of poor grammar,
too, and wrong tone.

I did ring HSBC to ask if they'd like a scan of it: rather disappointed
that they didn't. (I did say can I at least give you the email addresses
and 'phone number so you can set the authorities on them, and he took
them, but I suspect only to please me.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... the greatest musical festival in the world that doesn't involve mud.
- Eddie Mair, RT 2014/8/16-22

On 19.1.24 19:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Today, I received a scam letter - a real one, on paper through the post!
> It's certainly many years since I have - if ever!
>
> It's basically the "Nigerian email" one (though that often claimed to be
> from some prince). It'd be comic if it wasn't (as they all are) a
> serious attempt to scam:
>
> It's from "... Managing Director at HSBC Global Private Banking, Hong
> Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited." It tells of a huge
> amount of money someone's left there, and he's wanting me to help him
> get it out as I have the same surname as the person. (OK, mine's
> _moderately_ unusual - I think I'm the only one in Kent - but it's far
> from unique, especially around Nottingham.) It doesn't quite go as far
> as asking me to send him money needed to bribe people to get the money
> out (that was the "traditional" Nigerian scam), but does ask me to
> contact him - at his @aol.com address! (If I had, I'm sure such requests
> would follow.) Oh, and "I asked my wife who is on holiday in Great
> Britain ... to help me post this letter". (Which came in a preprinted -
> 1st class! - envelope, not a stamp.) Contains plenty of poor grammar,
> too, and wrong tone.
>
> I did ring HSBC to ask if they'd like a scan of it: rather disappointed
> that they didn't. (I did say can I at least give you the email addresses
> and 'phone number so you can set the authorities on them, and he took
> them, but I suspect only to please me.)

My Japanese MD received one of these in about 1990 - before it had ever
become a "thing". I suggested that it was unlikely to be real.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On 19-Jan-24 19:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Today, I received a scam letter - a real one, on paper through the post!
> It's certainly many years since I have - if ever!
>
> It's basically the "Nigerian email" one (though that often claimed to be
> from some prince). It'd be comic if it wasn't (as they all are) a
> serious attempt to scam:
>
> It's from "... Managing Director at HSBC Global Private Banking, Hong
> Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited." It tells of a huge
> amount of money someone's left there, and he's wanting me to help him
> get it out as I have the same surname as the person. (OK, mine's
> _moderately_ unusual - I think I'm the only one in Kent - but it's far
> from unique, especially around Nottingham.) It doesn't quite go as far
> as asking me to send him money needed to bribe people to get the money
> out (that was the "traditional" Nigerian scam), but does ask me to
> contact him - at his @aol.com address! (If I had, I'm sure such requests
> would follow.) Oh, and "I asked my wife who is on holiday in Great
> Britain ... to help me post this letter". (Which came in a preprinted -
> 1st class! - envelope, not a stamp.) Contains plenty of poor grammar,
> too, and wrong tone.
>
> I did ring HSBC to ask if they'd like a scan of it: rather disappointed
> that they didn't. (I did say can I at least give you the email addresses
> and 'phone number so you can set the authorities on them, and he took
> them, but I suspect only to please me.)

I trust you are going to respond - via a throwaway email address, natch.

--
Sam Plusnet

In message <ZeFqN.244488$Wp_8.177512@fx17.iad> at Sat, 20 Jan 2024
01:22:00, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>On 19-Jan-24 19:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> Today, I received a scam letter - a real one, on paper through the
>>post! It's certainly many years since I have - if ever!
[]
>I trust you are going to respond - via a throwaway email address, natch.
>
No, I CBA. I'm getting old. There was a time when I'd respond to scam
'phonecalls, just to wind them up (and also provide a public service by
occupying their time, so that during that time they couldn't be
bothering someone else), but now I tend just to hang up on them.

Though most of them, just silence (or TV on in the background) usually
kills them; if I get a call around peak scam call hour (around 10:30 a.
m. for me), I pick up but don't say anything; it usually goes to a tone
after a fairly small number of seconds (I guess 4 to 6). I work on the
basis that anyone really calling me would say "hello?" or similar after
a short time - certainly not just hang off.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

live your dash. ... On your tombstone, there's the date you're born and the
date you die - and in between there's a dash. - a friend quoted by Dustin
Hoffman in Radio Times, 5-11 January 2013

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <ZeFqN.244488$Wp_8.177512@fx17.iad> at Sat, 20 Jan 2024
> 01:22:00, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>> On 19-Jan-24 19:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> Today, I received a scam letter - a real one, on paper through the
>>> post! It's certainly many years since I have - if ever!
> []
>> I trust you are going to respond - via a throwaway email address, natch.
>>
> No, I CBA. I'm getting old. There was a time when I'd respond to scam
> 'phonecalls, just to wind them up (and also provide a public service by
> occupying their time, so that during that time they couldn't be
> bothering someone else), but now I tend just to hang up on them.
>
> Though most of them, just silence (or TV on in the background) usually
> kills them; if I get a call around peak scam call hour (around 10:30 a.
> m. for me), I pick up but don't say anything; it usually goes to a tone
> after a fairly small number of seconds (I guess 4 to 6). I work on the
> basis that anyone really calling me would say "hello?" or similar after
> a short time - certainly not just hang off.

We went through a phase with my late Mother of ringing three times and then
hanging up only to ring a second time and continue to ring for her to
answer; the reason was that she was experiencing a long spate of nuisance
calls. (Yes, we had registered her for the TPS but even several years
later, this didn’t seem to be working in her favour.)

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

>No, I CBA. I'm getting old. There was a time when I'd respond to scam
>'phonecalls, just to wind them up (and also provide a public service by
>occupying their time, so that during that time they couldn't be
>bothering someone else), but now I tend just to hang up on them.

Got a scam email yesterday purporting to be from Virgin. First
clue was that it wasn't to my Virgin email address.

Second clue was that the URL they asked you to use

<VirginMedia.com/my-virgin-media/chris@cdixon.me.uk/eBilling_errors>

mapped onto something completely different, which I have no
intention of exploring

<https://autodealerhouston.com/ebilling/secure_update/css/>

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.

In message <uog3sd$3k7va$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:30:53,
Mike McMillan <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> writes
>J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[]
>> Though most of them, just silence (or TV on in the background) usually
>> kills them; if I get a call around peak scam call hour (around 10:30 a.
>> m. for me), I pick up but don't say anything; it usually goes to a tone
>> after a fairly small number of seconds (I guess 4 to 6). I work on the
>> basis that anyone really calling me would say "hello?" or similar after
>> a short time - certainly not just hang off.
>
>We went through a phase with my late Mother of ringing three times and then
>hanging up only to ring a second time and continue to ring for her to
>answer; the reason was that she was experiencing a long spate of nuisance
>calls. (Yes, we had registered her for the TPS but even several years
>later, this didn’t seem to be working in her favour.)
>
I think the TPS only applies to this country, so a company only has to
use a foreign call centre to avoid having to give it any heed.

As I've said before, the telcos could easily block most spam calls,
because they have spoofed CLIs when you use 1471 (or caller display if
you have that), but are "unknown" if you try to block them; that
combination ought to be easily detectable. (Genuine number withholders -
like some parts of the NHS - will show as unknown or withheld on both.)
But there's no incentive for the telcos to expend any effort in that
direction.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

By the very definition of "news," we hear very little about the dominant
threats to our lives, and the most about the rarest, including terror.
"LibertyMcG" alias Brian P. McGlinchey, 2013-7-23

On 20-Jan-24 18:40, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <uog3sd$3k7va$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:30:53,
> Mike McMillan <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> writes
>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> []
>>> Though most of them, just silence (or TV on in the background) usually
>>> kills them; if I get a call around peak scam call hour (around 10:30 a.
>>> m. for me), I pick up but don't say anything; it usually goes to a tone
>>> after a fairly small number of seconds (I guess 4 to 6). I work on the
>>> basis that anyone really calling me would say "hello?" or similar after
>>> a short time - certainly not just hang off.
>>
>> We went through a phase with my late Mother of ringing three times and
>> then
>> hanging up only to ring a second time and continue to ring for her to
>> answer; the reason was that she was experiencing a long spate of nuisance
>> calls. (Yes, we had registered her for the TPS but even several years
>> later, this didn’t seem to be working in her favour.)
>>
> I think the TPS only applies to this country, so a company only has to
> use a foreign call centre to avoid having to give it any heed.

Even without that.
I don't want to say the TPS is toothless, but you would have to be a
_very_ naughty boy for a long long time before they would trouble you.

--
Sam Plusnet

>On 20-Jan-24 18:40, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I think the TPS only applies to this country, so a company only has to
>> use a foreign call centre to avoid having to give it any heed.

I have good reason to applaud at least two British companies for
out-sourcing their call centre outside UK office hours. The nice people in
the call centre in India always sent an email after ending the call, which
included dates and times. This helped me prove I had cancelled whatever it
was, within the cut-off date, so I didn't owe them any of the money they
seemed to think I did.

--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

In message <bieqqi5d7idsrcgflf010oeh48vjqa7ce7@4ax.com> at Sun, 21 Jan
2024 15:44:55, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
>>On 20-Jan-24 18:40, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> I think the TPS only applies to this country, so a company only has to
>>> use a foreign call centre to avoid having to give it any heed.
>
>I have good reason to applaud at least two British companies for
>out-sourcing their call centre outside UK office hours. The nice people in
>the call centre in India always sent an email after ending the call, which
>included dates and times. This helped me prove I had cancelled whatever it
>was, within the cut-off date, so I didn't owe them any of the money they
>seemed to think I did.
>
Oh, I'm fine with companies I have to deal with outsourcing - as long as
the people on the other end can actually communicate in English, that
is. TalkTalk, for example: when I've had to ring for technical help for
an old lady friend (something about her broadband I couldn't figure out,
or at least it was a lot easier to ring them), the Indian (I think) chap
I spoke to was very on the ball technically, and adapted to my level of
comprehension quite well; I've done that at least twice.

It's companies who cold-call - even if not actual scamming - who I think
can ignore the TPS by calling from abroad. Scammers, of course, since
they're committing a crime anyway, will not worry about a little thing
like that.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"This situation absolutely requires a really futile and stoopid gesture be done
on somebody's part." "We're just the guys to do it." Eric "Otter" Stratton (Tim
Matheson) and John "Bluto" Blutarsky (John Belushi) - N. L's Animal House
(1978)

On 20.1.24 07:43, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <ZeFqN.244488$Wp_8.177512@fx17.iad> at Sat, 20 Jan 2024
> 01:22:00, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>> On 19-Jan-24 19:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> Today, I received a scam letter - a real one, on paper through the
>>> post!  It's certainly many years since I have - if ever!
> []
>> I trust you are going to respond - via a throwaway email address, natch.
>>
> No, I CBA. I'm getting old. There was a time when I'd respond to scam
> 'phonecalls, just to wind them up (and also provide a public service by
> occupying their time, so that during that time they couldn't be
> bothering someone else), but now I tend just to hang up on them.
>
> Though most of them, just silence (or TV on in the background) usually
> kills them; if I get a call around peak scam call hour (around 10:30 a.
> m. for me), I pick up but don't say anything; it usually goes to a tone
> after a fairly small number of seconds (I guess 4 to 6). I work on the
> basis that anyone really calling me would say "hello?" or similar after
> a short time - certainly not just hang off.

Round here they hang up after that time even if you do speak.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On 20/01/2024 18:40, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I think the TPS only applies to this country, so a company only has to
> use a foreign call centre to avoid having to give it any heed.
>
> As I've said before, the telcos could easily block most spam calls,
> because they have spoofed CLIs when you use 1471 (or caller display if
> you have that), but are "unknown" if you try to block them; that
> combination ought to be easily detectable. (Genuine number withholders -
> like some parts of the NHS - will show as unknown or withheld on both.)
> But there's no incentive for the telcos to expend any effort in that
> direction.

A few years ago, when I needed to get a new landline phone, I got one
which demands anyone it doesn't recognise announces themselves. I can
then choose to accept or reject the call before they are put through to
me. I have yet to have a scammer or spammer even try to get through;
they clearly just hang up as soon as they're asked to declare
themselves. I got one after my brother had said how well it had
worked, after he and my sil had bought one for his mil, who had dementia
and was all too happy to talk to any scammer.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Q. Why was the Egyptian boy confused?
A. Because his daddy was a mummy.

On 28/01/2024 14:06, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>
> A few years ago, when I needed to get a new landline phone, I got one
> which demands anyone it doesn't recognise announces themselves.  I can
> then choose to accept or reject the call before they are put through to
> me.  I have yet to have a scammer or spammer even try to get through;
> they clearly just hang up as soon as they're asked to declare
> themselves.  I got one after my brother had said  how well it had
> worked, after he and my sil had bought one for his mil, who had dementia
> and was all too happy to talk to any scammer.

YANAOU! Only difference is it was my sister who recommended it!

--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK

On 28-Jan-24 15:57, Jenny M Benson wrote:
> On 28/01/2024 14:06, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>
>> A few years ago, when I needed to get a new landline phone, I got one
>> which demands anyone it doesn't recognise announces themselves.  I can
>> then choose to accept or reject the call before they are put through
>> to me.  I have yet to have a scammer or spammer even try to get
>> through; they clearly just hang up as soon as they're asked to declare
>> themselves.  I got one after my brother had said  how well it had
>> worked, after he and my sil had bought one for his mil, who had
>> dementia and was all too happy to talk to any scammer.
>
> YANAOU!  Only difference is it was my sister who recommended it!
>
Our landline doesn't have any such defences but we very rarely get spam
calls.
So many 'Young Folk'[1] nowadays don't have landlines, that spammers may
have (for the most part) decided to move on to other methods of cheating
a living.

[1] 'Young Folk' includes anyone ten years younger than me. On a bad
day it's anyone at all.

--
Sam Plusnet

In message <iAxtN.290372$PuZ9.253203@fx11.iad> at Sun, 28 Jan 2024
19:05:50, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
[]
>Our landline doesn't have any such defences but we very rarely get spam
>calls.
>So many 'Young Folk'[1] nowadays don't have landlines, that spammers
>may have (for the most part) decided to move on to other methods of
>cheating a living.

It's obviously very varied! My landline - which is my main line -
doesn't have any such protection either (other than being registered
with the TPS), and I receive plenty of spam calls - none some days,
several others (I think the most has been 5 or 6 in a day). They seem to
peak around 10:30 (a. m.).
>
>[1] 'Young Folk' includes anyone ten years younger than me. On a bad
>day it's anyone at all.
>
next birthday I'll be at the top of my current age bracket (in surveys
and the like). The next one is the top one in some surveys.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Personally, I don't like the Senate idea, I don't like the idea of having to
elect another bunch of overpaid incompetents. I don't like the idea of having
wholesale appointments by the PM of the day for domination of the second
chamber. I like anachronism. I like the idea of a bunch of unelected congenital
idiots getting in the way of a bunch of conmen. - Charles F. Hankel, 1998-3-19.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 01:44:57 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <iAxtN.290372$PuZ9.253203@fx11.iad> at Sun, 28 Jan 2024
>19:05:50, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>[]
>>Our landline doesn't have any such defences but we very rarely get spam
>>calls.
>>So many 'Young Folk'[1] nowadays don't have landlines, that spammers
>>may have (for the most part) decided to move on to other methods of
>>cheating a living.
>
>It's obviously very varied! My landline - which is my main line -
>doesn't have any such protection either (other than being registered
>with the TPS), and I receive plenty of spam calls - none some days,
>several others (I think the most has been 5 or 6 in a day). They seem to
>peak around 10:30 (a. m.).
<snip>

Back in the days when I had a land line (which aren't so far away
really) I used a caller display and a voicemail facility. If I didn't
recognise the number I didn't pick up the phone and if it was anybody
who knew me or had legitimate business with me they would leave a
message. When I stuck to that routine the spam calls just fell away.
I've never been a big telephone user anyway and so days would pass
without my receiving any sort of call at all.

Once, I was expecting a call at a particular time and when the phone
rang, I picked it up without checking first. It was, unfortunately,
that now-rarity, the spam call. Only, now that I had picked up the
phone the rate of spam calls instantly picked up to several per day
and it took a couple of months of disciplined nonpickuppery before it
faded away again.

The moral of this story is: don't answer the phone unless you know who
the caller is.

Nick

On 28.1.24 15:57, Jenny M Benson wrote:
> On 28/01/2024 14:06, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>
>> A few years ago, when I needed to get a new landline phone, I got one
>> which demands anyone it doesn't recognise announces themselves.  I can
>> then choose to accept or reject the call before they are put through
>> to me.  I have yet to have a scammer or spammer even try to get
>> through; they clearly just hang up as soon as they're asked to declare
>> themselves.  I got one after my brother had said  how well it had
>> worked, after he and my sil had bought one for his mil, who had
>> dementia and was all too happy to talk to any scammer.
>
> YANAOU!  Only difference is it was my sister who recommended it!
>

I have to buy a new landline phone - one of the current base stations
does not recharge the handset - but there is this rumour that they are
about to be abolished which means I would be wasting my money.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

In message <vm8fri1ogahd6opf0la9i94ne50imco81j@4ax.com> at Mon, 29 Jan
2024 13:17:28, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> writes
>On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 01:44:57 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <iAxtN.290372$PuZ9.253203@fx11.iad> at Sun, 28 Jan 2024
>>19:05:50, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>>[]
>>>Our landline doesn't have any such defences but we very rarely get spam
>>>calls.
>>>So many 'Young Folk'[1] nowadays don't have landlines, that spammers
>>>may have (for the most part) decided to move on to other methods of
>>>cheating a living.
>>
>>It's obviously very varied! My landline - which is my main line -
>>doesn't have any such protection either (other than being registered
>>with the TPS), and I receive plenty of spam calls - none some days,
>>several others (I think the most has been 5 or 6 in a day). They seem to
[]
>Back in the days when I had a land line (which aren't so far away
>really) I used a caller display and a voicemail facility. If I didn't
>recognise the number I didn't pick up the phone and if it was anybody
>who knew me or had legitimate business with me they would leave a
>message. When I stuck to that routine the spam calls just fell away.
>I've never been a big telephone user anyway and so days would pass
>without my receiving any sort of call at all.

Interesting ...
>
>Once, I was expecting a call at a particular time and when the phone
>rang, I picked it up without checking first. It was, unfortunately,
>that now-rarity, the spam call. Only, now that I had picked up the
>phone the rate of spam calls instantly picked up to several per day
>and it took a couple of months of disciplined nonpickuppery before it
>faded away again.

.... very interesting. So it's the act of picking up that triggers the
increase, even if you don't say anything.

>
>The moral of this story is: don't answer the phone unless you know who
>the caller is.
>
>Nick

Trouble is, that requires caller display, either as separate device or a
'phone with it. I had such a device (I could even record a few seconds
into it associated with each of a number of numbers, so I would tell me
who was calling!), but it died (and I wasn't able to find another of the
same model) (yes, I know lots of 'phones give that sort of functionality
nowadays) - and it's getting too close to the end of POTS to buy now.
I'm looking, slowly, into VoIP (especially since PlusNet _aren't_ going
to be doing it); a firm called "voipfone" look good (and a lot cheaper
than Zen: voipfone are 1.50 a month plus 1p/7p/2p a minute for calls to
UK land/UK mobile/US, or 5 a month including 100 minutes then as above,
or other packages).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a subset of
Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in
Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003.

On 29/01/2024 13:17, Nick Odell wrote:
> Back in the days when I had a land line (which aren't so far away
> really) I used a caller display and a voicemail facility. If I didn't
> recognise the number I didn't pick up the phone and if it was anybody
> who knew me or had legitimate business with me they would leave a
> message. When I stuck to that routine the spam calls just fell away.
> I've never been a big telephone user anyway and so days would pass
> without my receiving any sort of call at all.

Many moons ago, when my ME first came back, I found myself in a double
bind, in that friends, who I did want to hear from, would avoid phoning
me, because they were worried about disturbing me, while double glazing
salesmen and the like, who I didn't want to hear from, had no such
qualms. I fixed this by letting friends and family know that, if I
didn't pick up quickly, they'd go through to my answer phone and, if
they left a message, I'd get back to them when I surfaced. I also let
them know that my bedside phone had the ringer switched off, so I
wouldn't hear the phone if I was asleep.

The problem I had which was fixed by my current system was that, for me,
the main hassle of spam calls was having to get up out of my chair and
walk across the room to check if the call was from someone I knew, and
wanted to talk to. By the time I'd done that, it was generally just as
easy, or easier, to answer the phone and tell a scammer to go away, as
it was to wait to see whether they left a message and then, to listen to
it and decide if I needed/wanted to call back.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable. (John F. Kennedy)

On 28/01/2024 14:06, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
> On 20/01/2024 18:40, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I think the TPS only applies to this country, so a company only has to
>> use a foreign call centre to avoid having to give it any heed.
>>
>> As I've said before, the telcos could easily block most spam calls,
>> because they have spoofed CLIs when you use 1471 (or caller display if
>> you have that), but are "unknown" if you try to block them; that
>> combination ought to be easily detectable. (Genuine number withholders
>> - like some parts of the NHS - will show as unknown or withheld on
>> both.) But there's no incentive for the telcos to expend any effort in
>> that direction.
>
> A few years ago, when I needed to get a new landline phone, I got one
> which demands anyone it doesn't recognise announces themselves.  I can
> then choose to accept or reject the call before they are put through to
> me.  I have yet to have a scammer or spammer even try to get through;
> they clearly just hang up as soon as they're asked to declare
> themselves.  I got one after my brother had said  how well it had
> worked, after he and my sil had bought one for his mil, who had dementia
> and was all too happy to talk to any scammer.
>
I read of one person who would hand nuisance calls to his four year old
daughter who was happy to talk to anybody at great length.

--
Ric

On 29/01/2024 15:06, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Trouble is, that requires caller display, either as separate device or a
> 'phone with it. I had such a device (I could even record a few seconds
> into it associated with each of a number of numbers, so I would tell me
> who was calling!), but it died (and I wasn't able to find another of the
> same model) (yes, I know lots of 'phones give that sort of functionality
> nowadays) - and it's getting too close to the end of POTS to buy now.
> I'm looking, slowly, into VoIP (especially since PlusNet _aren't_ going
> to be doing it); a firm called "voipfone" look good (and a lot cheaper
> than Zen: voipfone are 1.50 a month plus 1p/7p/2p a minute for calls to
> UK land/UK mobile/US, or 5 a month including 100 minutes then as above,
> or other packages).

My instinct is that it won't take much for me to just decide to drop my
landline, and it's number, altogether and just use my mobile. Fewer and
fewer people ever use my landline; it's main use is for me to call my
mobile if I've mislaid it around the house. I doubt I can be bothered
to set up a new VoIP system, if/when I lose my current landline, or even
if my current landline phone died on me.

--
Best wishes, Serena
War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

In message <1dicnZ5CprRlIyr4nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Mon,
29 Jan 2024 15:06:32, kosmo <kosmo@whitnet.uk> writes
[]
>I have to buy a new landline phone - one of the current base stations
>does not recharge the handset - but there is this rumour that they are
>about to be abolished which means I would be wasting my money.
>
It's probably either the power supply for the base station - or, if it's
just the one handset (try switching them around), the rechargeable cells
in the handset (which I would say is the most likely). Both _should_ be
findable: if the power supply, read its volts and amps (which will be on
it, though in tiny print and in black on a black background) and
polarity, and you should be able to find a new such on ebay for very
little (almost certainly more amps; last time I bought such I got one
with a set of selectable voltages set by a screw underneath, as it was
only pennies more and I thought might be useful). If the cell pack, you
might have to buy one that _looks_ the same - possibly not for the same
model; if the 'phone is old enough that it has NiCds rather than NiMHs,
you might have to get the latter - on mine, the charge circuitry though
not designed for the latter didn't blow them up. You need to find one of
the same size, shape, and connector.

Yes, the POTS (plain old telephone system - I think that's what it
really does stand for!) is being phased out: a date of 2025 is sort of
nominal, though some suppliers are doing it earlier (e. g. at next
contract renewal), and I'd be surprised if there aren't a _few_ cases
where it goes on after that. In a lot of cases we'll still get our
broadband over the same wires - especially in rural areas - they'll just
stop connecting the dialling and voice equipment at the exchange end of
the wire, only the broadband. (In practice it'll be a cabinet somewhere
in between in many cases.)

But, in many cases, you'll be able to carry on using your existing
analogue 'phones (and fax machines, answerphones, etc.) - you'll just
plug them (or the master plug of your extension lead network) into your
router, rather than the BT (or "post office"!) master socket. In some
cases you'll need an adapter box, in others that'll be built into the
router (I know it is for Zen's, for example) and all you'll need is a
short lead to convert the plugs (even routers that do have the adapter
box built in tend to have US 'phone sockets on them).

The adapter boxes are currently moderately expensive (unless they're
already built into the router), and it's cheaper to buy a "VoIP 'phone"
that just plugs into the router direct - though if you have several
'phones (etc.), or just dislike throwing out perfectly working kit,
they're still an option. (Some even still work with pulse dialling, so
you can still use your dial 'phone!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a subset of
Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in
Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003.

On 29/01/2024 15:14, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
> On 29/01/2024 13:17, Nick Odell wrote:
>> Back in the days when I had a land line (which aren't so far away
>> really) I used a caller display and a voicemail facility. If I didn't
>> recognise the number I didn't pick up the phone and if it was anybody
>> who knew me or had legitimate business with me they would leave a
>> message. When I stuck to that routine the spam calls just fell away.
>> I've never been a big telephone user anyway and so days would pass
>> without my receiving any sort of call at all.
>
>
> Many moons ago, when my ME first came back, I found myself in a double
> bind, in that friends, who I did want to hear from, would avoid phoning
> me, because they were worried about disturbing me, while double glazing
> salesmen and the like, who I didn't want to hear from, had no such
> qualms.  I fixed this by letting friends and family know that, if I
> didn't pick up quickly, they'd go through to my answer phone and, if
> they left a message, I'd get back to them when I surfaced.  I also let
> them know that my bedside phone had the ringer switched off, so I
> wouldn't hear the phone if I was asleep.
>
My landlines (which are rarely used) have message saying that the caller
is welcome to leave a message but it might be better to call my mobile.
it's a polite way of saying "If you don't have my mobile number I
probably don't want to hear from you".

> The problem I had which was fixed by my current system was that, for me,
> the main hassle of spam calls was having to get up out of my chair and
> walk across the room to check if the call was from someone I knew, and
> wanted to talk to.  By the time I'd done that, it was generally just as
> easy, or easier, to answer the phone and tell a scammer to go away, as
> it was to wait to see whether they left a message and then, to listen to
> it and decide if I needed/wanted to call back.
>

--
Ric

On 29/01/2024 15:06, kosmo wrote:
> On 28.1.24 15:57, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>> On 28/01/2024 14:06, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>>
>>> A few years ago, when I needed to get a new landline phone, I got one
>>> which demands anyone it doesn't recognise announces themselves.  I
>>> can then choose to accept or reject the call before they are put
>>> through to me.  I have yet to have a scammer or spammer even try to
>>> get through; they clearly just hang up as soon as they're asked to
>>> declare themselves.  I got one after my brother had said  how well it
>>> had worked, after he and my sil had bought one for his mil, who had
>>> dementia and was all too happy to talk to any scammer.
>>
>> YANAOU!  Only difference is it was my sister who recommended it!
>>
>
> I have to buy a new landline phone - one of the current base stations
> does not recharge the handset - but there is this rumour that they are
> about to be abolished which means I would be wasting my money.
>
I read something rather reassuring about this on the BT website recently
(or did I get rerouted to Ofcom?). Apparently regular landlines will
plug into the router and still function. If you don't want your phone
and router adjacent they will supply a wireless adapter that you can
plug your phone in to at a location of your choosing. Other companies
should do something similar.

--
Ric

In message <up8fkl$cm2e$2@dont-email.me> at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:18:45,
Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> writes
[]
>My instinct is that it won't take much for me to just decide to drop my
>landline, and it's number, altogether and just use my mobile. Fewer
>and fewer people ever use my landline; it's main use is for me to call
>my mobile if I've mislaid it around the house. I doubt I can be
>bothered to set up a new VoIP system, if/when I lose my current
>landline, or even if my current landline phone died on me.
>
My impression, looking at voipfone, is that there's minimal setting up
involved - at minimum, you just sign up and use your computer, so it's
like a Skype (or similar) call, though they have ways of using your
mobile or (via an adapter box) existing analogue 'phone which makes it
more versatile.

I like having a landline number - I feel it's more trustworthy, and also
up to now I've never had a monthly contract for a mobile (since I'd use
far less than 5% of the monthly allowance most months), so anything that
put me on hold for tens of minutes would have been expensive.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'm too lazy to have a bigger ego. - James May, RT 2016/1/23-29