I got a scam call on the landline today, and tried to get the callers
phone number but 1471 didn't work? has this changed?

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> tried to get the callers phone number but 1471 didn't work?

There have always been calls for which 1471 will say words to the effect of

"you were called today at $TIME,
but we do not have the caller's number to return the call"

I don't think a simple CLI withheld gives the same message.

On 22/03/2024 14:55, Andy Burns wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> tried to get the callers phone number but 1471 didn't work?
>
> There have always been calls for which 1471 will say words to the effect of
>
>     "you were called today at $TIME,
>     but we do not have the caller's number to return the call"
>
> I don't think a simple CLI withheld gives the same message.
>
>
>
The message I got was 'you have dialled a number that does not exist'
....

--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On 22/03/2024 15:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 14:55, Andy Burns wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> tried to get the callers phone number but 1471 didn't work?
>>
>> There have always been calls for which 1471 will say words to the
>> effect of
>>
>>      "you were called today at $TIME,
>>      but we do not have the caller's number to return the call"
>>
>> I don't think a simple CLI withheld gives the same message.
>>
>>
>>
> The message I got was 'you have dialled a number that does not exist'
> ...
>
>

Well I've just rung 1471, and a female voice told me the time and number
of the most recent incoming call. Is your landline on an Openreach line,
or something different?
--
Cheers,
Roger

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:27:31 +0000
Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 22/03/2024 15:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > On 22/03/2024 14:55, Andy Burns wrote:
> >> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >>
> >>> tried to get the callers phone number but 1471 didn't work?
> >>
> >> There have always been calls for which 1471 will say words to the
> >> effect of
> >>
> >>      "you were called today at $TIME,
> >>      but we do not have the caller's number to return the call"
> >>
> >> I don't think a simple CLI withheld gives the same message.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > The message I got was 'you have dialled a number that does not
> > exist' ...
> >
> >
>
> Well I've just rung 1471, and a female voice told me the time and
> number of the most recent incoming call. Is your landline on an
> Openreach line, or something different?

But if, as seems likely, the OP'S presented number was spoofed, is that
not the one that 1471 tried to call?
--
Davey.

On 23/03/2024 00:31, Davey wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:27:31 +0000
> Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 22/03/2024 15:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 22/03/2024 14:55, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> tried to get the callers phone number but 1471 didn't work?
>>>>
>>>> There have always been calls for which 1471 will say words to the
>>>> effect of
>>>>
>>>>      "you were called today at $TIME,
>>>>      but we do not have the caller's number to return the call"
>>>>
>>>> I don't think a simple CLI withheld gives the same message.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The message I got was 'you have dialled a number that does not
>>> exist' ...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well I've just rung 1471, and a female voice told me the time and
>> number of the most recent incoming call. Is your landline on an
>> Openreach line, or something different?
>
> But if, as seems likely, the OP'S presented number was spoofed, is that
> not the one that 1471 tried to call?

Hmm. I wonder. Or did i misdial 1471

--
I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you
can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if
you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed
whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it.

Sir Roger Scruton

On 23/03/2024 00:31, Davey wrote:
> But if, as seems likely, the OP'S presented number was spoofed, is that
> not the one that 1471 tried to call?

Not sure of the different types of ex-directory numbers now, but I don't
think ex-directory and NQR numbers displayed on CLI.

Am 23/03/2024 um 07:07 schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
> On 23/03/2024 00:31, Davey wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:27:31 +0000
>> Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/03/2024 15:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 22/03/2024 14:55, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> tried to get the callers phone number but 1471 didn't work?
>>>>>
>>>>> There have always been calls for which 1471 will say words to the
>>>>> effect of
>>>>>
>>>>>       "you were called today at $TIME,
>>>>>       but we do not have the caller's number to return the call"
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think a simple CLI withheld gives the same message.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The message I got was 'you have dialled a number that does not
>>>> exist' ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well I've just rung 1471, and a female voice told me the time and
>>> number of the most recent incoming call. Is your landline on an
>>> Openreach line, or something different?
>>
>> But if, as seems likely, the OP'S presented number was spoofed, is that
>> not the one that 1471 tried to call?
>
> Hmm. I wonder. Or did i misdial 1471
>

Advanced dementia and/or chronic alcoholism does this.

--
Ottavio Caruso

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 08:49:19 +0000
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

> On 23/03/2024 00:31, Davey wrote:
> > But if, as seems likely, the OP'S presented number was spoofed, is
> > that not the one that 1471 tried to call?
>
>
>
> Not sure of the different types of ex-directory numbers now, but I
> don't think ex-directory and NQR numbers displayed on CLI.
>
>
>

I often receive calls from numbers that look like London numbers, but
do not exist. They usually appear on 'WhoCalledMe?' as nuisance numbers.
I always let the answering machine take them, and either the call is
hung up immediately, or the outgoing message plays, and then it's
dropped.
These are not ex-directory numbers, and I don't know what you mean by
NQR. The number displayed is simply what the caller wants it to display.
--
Davey.

On 23/03/2024 00:31, Davey wrote:
> But if, as seems likely, the OP'S presented number was spoofed, is that
> not the one that 1471 tried to call?

It is not clear to me that they got a number out of 1471 in the first
place. The description sounded more like 1471 was being faulted.

On 23/03/2024 09:36, Davey wrote:
> don't know what you mean by
> NQR

Whilst I think the whole ex-directory thing is a red herring, on this
thread, there used to be two levels of ex-directory. The simple one was
simply not being in the paper directory, and the second one was one that
the directory enquiries operator would not give out, even if you
provided the full address. The latter might, for example, be King
Charles' direct personal phone number.

Google didn't give me any help on NQR or on this sort of number, so I'm
not sure if they are the same thing.

David Woolley wrote:

> Google didn't give me any help on NQR

No Quoted Record, i.e. the operator will deny such a number exists.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:49:59 +0000
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> David Woolley wrote:
>
> > Google didn't give me any help on NQR
>
> No Quoted Record, i.e. the operator will deny such a number exists.
>

Ah, thank you. Now I can make sense of some of the messages.

--
Davey.

On 23/03/2024 15:49, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> No Quoted Record, i.e. the operator will deny such a number exists.

I think even the operator cannot see the number.

On 23/03/2024 15:49, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> No Quoted Record, i.e. the operator will deny such a number exists.

I had a friend in BT and he claimed that he could see withheld numbers,
I have another friend who has forensic access but that is another story!

On 23/03/2024 09:21, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> Am 23/03/2024 um 07:07 schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>> On 23/03/2024 00:31, Davey wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:27:31 +0000
>>> Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22/03/2024 15:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 22/03/2024 14:55, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> tried to get the callers phone number but 1471 didn't work?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There have always been calls for which 1471 will say words to the
>>>>>> effect of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       "you were called today at $TIME,
>>>>>>       but we do not have the caller's number to return the call"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think a simple CLI withheld gives the same message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> The message I got was 'you have dialled a number that does not
>>>>> exist' ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well I've just rung 1471, and a female voice told me the time and
>>>> number of the most recent incoming call. Is your landline on an
>>>> Openreach line, or something different?
>>>
>>> But if, as seems likely, the OP'S presented number was spoofed, is that
>>> not the one that 1471 tried to call?
>>
>> Hmm. I wonder. Or did i misdial 1471
>>
>
> Advanced dementia and/or chronic alcoholism does this.
>
Well you would of course be the most experienced in that.

--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.”
Sir Roger Scruton

On 23/03/2024 15:41, David Woolley wrote:
> On 23/03/2024 00:31, Davey wrote:
>> But if, as seems likely, the OP'S presented number was spoofed, is that
>> not the one that 1471 tried to call?
>
> It is not clear to me that they got a number out of 1471 in the first
> place.  The description sounded more like 1471 was being faulted.

Yes. Hence my basic question. Is it still extant? If the answer is yes,
I must have misdialled

The message was not 'the caller's number was witheld' it was 'you have
called a nonexistent number'.

--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.”
Sir Roger Scruton

On 23/03/2024 08:49, JMB99 wrote:
> On 23/03/2024 00:31, Davey wrote:
>> But if, as seems likely, the OP'S presented number was spoofed, is that
>> not the one that 1471 tried to call?
>
>
>
> Not sure of the different types of ex-directory numbers now, but I don't
> think ex-directory and NQR numbers displayed on CLI.
>
>
> The two are not directly related. Any one can withhold or release their
number.

Dave

On 23/03/2024 20:18, David Wade wrote:
>> The two are not directly related. Any one can withhold or release their
> number.

But they often go together.

Our phones at work were all ex-directory and number withheld.

On 23/03/2024 16:40, JMB99 wrote:
>
> I had a friend in BT and he claimed that he could see withheld numbers,

I think, with System X and Y, at least an accounting number is
forwarded, and it only suppressed at the destination exchange. It might
also be true of caller ID. That might not work across international
boundaries. SIP can do the same, although I'm not sure that many
providers do it that way, and I'm sure the dodgy ones, providing
spoofing services, don't.

I think the US STIR/SHAKEN system, when used for SIP, transmits the
identity of the customer immediately upstream of an official network
operator, but I haven't looked into the fine details.

0800 service providers used to (maybe still do) get the accounting
number ID, i.e. who would have paid if the recipient weren't paying.

On 23/03/2024 00:31, Davey wrote:
> But if, as seems likely, the OP'S presented number was spoofed, is that
> not the one that 1471 tried to call?

But 1471 does not try to call a number by default; it simply tells you
the number that last called. It may, after that, offer to call the
number if it knows it, but not as an immediate response as soon as the
call to 1471 connects.

On 23/03/2024 15:45, David Woolley wrote:
> On 23/03/2024 09:36, Davey wrote:
>>   don't know what you mean by
>> NQR
>
> Whilst I think the whole ex-directory thing is a red herring, on this
> thread, there used to be two levels of ex-directory.  The simple one was
> simply not being in the paper directory, and the second one was one that
> the directory enquiries operator would not give out, even if you
> provided the full address.  The latter might, for example, be King
> Charles' direct personal phone number.
>
> Google didn't give me any help on NQR or on this sort of number, so I'm
> not sure if they are the same thing.

Aren't there three levels:

- not in paper directory (and nowadays the online one)

- calls offered (they will connect you without revealing the number,
maybe after checking with the recipient "will you accept a call from Mr X")

- NQR (eg King Charles's direct personal phone number)

I fell foul of a directory enquiries impasse when I tried to get through
to someone who is a social worker and therefore wanted to avoid nuisance
calls from their clients. DQ or the operator flatly refused to put me
through or even to pass on a message "phone X on this number".

This was a case of a whole village (or about 5 houses and 2 farms) who
were at a party given by the social worker, and so no-one else in the
village was answering their phone. I needed to get an urgent message to
my parents who were at the party, to say that my grandma had been taken
to hospital, gravely ill.

I eventually phoned the local police station and explained the
situation, and they either sent a car or else used privileged access to
directory enquiries to phone the person.

On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:08:24 +0000
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> On 23/03/2024 00:31, Davey wrote:
> > But if, as seems likely, the OP'S presented number was spoofed, is
> > that not the one that 1471 tried to call?
>
> But 1471 does not try to call a number by default; it simply tells
> you the number that last called. It may, after that, offer to call
> the number if it knows it, but not as an immediate response as soon
> as the call to 1471 connects.

Ok, I will rephrase my question:

"But if, as seems likely, the OP'S presented number was spoofed, is
that not still the one that 1471 reported as being the last caller"?

--
Davey.

On 24/03/2024 09:32, Davey wrote:
> "But if, as seems likely, the OP'S presented number was spoofed, is
> that not still the one that 1471 reported as being the last caller"?

A friend had access to (legally) spoofing his number so I used to see
all sorts of strange numbers on my CLI but never thought to try 1471
afterwards. I suspect the spoofed number would still be displayed.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 23/03/2024 15:41, David Woolley wrote:
> > On 23/03/2024 00:31, Davey wrote:
> >> But if, as seems likely, the OP'S presented number was spoofed, is that
> >> not the one that 1471 tried to call?
> >
> > It is not clear to me that they got a number out of 1471 in the first
> > place.  The description sounded more like 1471 was being faulted.
>
> Yes. Hence my basic question. Is it still extant? If the answer is yes,
> I must have misdialled

'Extant' depends on who your service provider is, since it a service
provided by your provider. Unless you tell us your provider it's hard to
make progress here.

> The message was not 'the caller's number was witheld' it was 'you have
> called a nonexistent number'.

If this is a landline that has been migrated to digital voice, it's no
longer using any Openreach call handling - it's all up to your ISP. They
may choose to subcontract that service back to BT, but it's still a
different platform from those with an analogue line.

Theo

(who gets an engaged tone when calling 1471 on A&A VOIP. Seems they don't
offer it - no doubt as there are better ways to do the same job)