MMS SPAM.

I placed call # 4 to Cingualr this evening after receiving anoother 15
messages today. I finally came out and asked the rep if he could open a
trouble ticket to get this MMS spam to stop. To my surprise he said YES!
OMG. Why did it take 4 calls? Why did I have to ask them to generate a
trouble ticket for unsolicited MMS mail? They asked me to give them 72
hours. Let's see what happens.

---

› See More: MMS SPAM.

Dr. Ray Batty wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:41:36 -0500, "Mo Mo"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>2. Change your phone number.
>>
>>Again, No. This is not a solution. Hundreds of people have my number, I use
>>it for business.
>
>
> Sure it is a solution, you just don't like it.

Of course we don't like it. In addition to abadoning my well known
number, you're expecting us to eat the cost of that choice. Sure, like
that's ever gonna happen.

>
>
>>>3. Upgrade youe plan to include more SMS.

We'd rather they upgrade their mail filters.

>>
>>Again not sms, MMS. 2. Why should I have to pay Cingular more money because
>>they can't control their spam and because they do not want to block
>>addresses from sending spam or at leat give their subscribers the ability to
>>do so via a web page.
>
>
> If it is for "business", then upgrade to a plan that gives you more
> MMS and write it off of your taxes.

That's right, foist it off on someone else.

>
>
>>>4. Get a phone with SMS filtering options. I would suspect, but do
>>>not know for sure, that something like a smartphone should be able to
>>>do that either with or without add-on software.
>>
>>If there was such a phone who would pay for it? This Spam problem is not my
>>fault. This is a ccingular issue.
>
>
> Ah ha. Here is your SECONDARY problem: You think it is CINGULAR's
> problem. It isn't THEIR problem someone is spamming you. You are
> like the person complaining of email spam in 1995 -- the problem you
> want isn't big enough for Cingular to have the solution yoiu desire.
> Maybe in 2010 it will be?
>
> And now to your PRIMARY problem: You want Cingular to "foot the bill"
> for your MMS spams. Footing the bill as far as designing, testing,
> and having a website that allows you to filter SMS. You would
> problaby whine too if they did create such a website but charged you
> $5.00/month to utilize it,


I'm not expecting anyone to foot the bill for mail filtering. Charge
me, I'll pay it. You wanna know why? Because it's my decision to
determine who can/cannot talk to me. When I pay the bill, I make the
choices.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Mo Mo wrote:
> Of course they could snap their fingers. This is basic mailserver 101. The
> ability to block senders has been around for many years.
>
>
> "Dr. Ray Batty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:02:33 -0600, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You're right, the ball is in my court, I just don't believe the rules
>>>are fair. It's my wireless bill, it should be my decision to determine
>>>who is and isn't capable (not simply allowed/disallowed) to contact me.
>>
>>You should be. But don't think it's Cingular's responsibility to make
>>that so for you.
>>
>>
>>>>Reality is a ***** sometimes.
>>>
>>>Yup, and it's also a simple issue to fix without waiting around for some
>>>broke-dick dog from the Beltway to do anything.
>>
>>How do you know that?
>>
>>You evidentally think Cingular can just snap their fingers and the
>>ability for them to filter MMS will appear magically out of nowhere.
>
>
>

Yeah, Dr. Non-Reality and his procmail scripts are the newbies here.
I've been filtering my email ever since I got the second crap message
from an idiot that thought they had some inalienable right to talk to
me. Not.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Dr. Ray Batty wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:02:33 -0600, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>You're right, the ball is in my court, I just don't believe the rules
>>are fair. It's my wireless bill, it should be my decision to determine
>>who is and isn't capable (not simply allowed/disallowed) to contact me.
>
>
> You should be. But don't think it's Cingular's responsibility to make
> that so for you.

Let me try make this a little more clear... I'm not saying it's
Cingular's responsibility, I'm saying I want my provider to work with me
to develop a solution to a growing problem, and I'll pay for the
privilege of using the feature. So what if it's a couple more bucks a
month? I'm not poor.

>
>
>>>Reality is a ***** sometimes.
>>
>>Yup, and it's also a simple issue to fix without waiting around for some
>>broke-dick dog from the Beltway to do anything.
>
>
> How do you know that?

Because I communicate with those broke-dick Beltway dogs regularly. And
I'm not the newbie you think I am.


>
> You evidentally think Cingular can just snap their fingers and the
> ability for them to filter MMS will appear magically out of nowhere.

Actually, no, that's not what I think at all. Other companies using
enterprise class mail servers do it, including Cingular's own internal
servers. Why can't Cingular do more and send me the tab?


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Right on Jer. I talked to a tech today who was actually honest. He
couldn't talk to me as a Cingular rep but as a "person" he said I could edit
my seem and individually block emails addresses or phone numbers. I will be
doing this if I can find the time.


"Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dr. Ray Batty wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:02:33 -0600, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You're right, the ball is in my court, I just don't believe the rules are
>>>fair. It's my wireless bill, it should be my decision to determine who
>>>is and isn't capable (not simply allowed/disallowed) to contact me.
>>
>>
>> You should be. But don't think it's Cingular's responsibility to make
>> that so for you.
>
> Let me try make this a little more clear... I'm not saying it's
> Cingular's responsibility, I'm saying I want my provider to work with me
> to develop a solution to a growing problem, and I'll pay for the privilege
> of using the feature. So what if it's a couple more bucks a month? I'm
> not poor.
>
>>
>>
>>>>Reality is a ***** sometimes.
>>>
>>>Yup, and it's also a simple issue to fix without waiting around for some
>>>broke-dick dog from the Beltway to do anything.
>>
>>
>> How do you know that?
>
> Because I communicate with those broke-dick Beltway dogs regularly. And
> I'm not the newbie you think I am.
>
>
>>
>> You evidentally think Cingular can just snap their fingers and the
>> ability for them to filter MMS will appear magically out of nowhere.
>
> Actually, no, that's not what I think at all. Other companies using
> enterprise class mail servers do it, including Cingular's own internal
> servers. Why can't Cingular do more and send me the tab?
>
>
> --
> jer
> email reply - I am not a 'ten'

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:26:00 -0600,
clifto <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> [shrug] Suit yourself. Rather than bang my head against a wall pointlessly,
>> I'd cut my losses and move on. There isn't going to be a real MMS spam
>> solution in our lifetimes any more than there's going to be a real email spam
>> solution.
>
>And that's entirely because we have a Congress that's bent on enriching
>itself at the expense of the American people.

It's actually more a matter of the US Constitution -- there are serious
constitutional issues in prohibiting speech.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:55:00 -0600,
Jer <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:

>> [shrug] Suit yourself. Rather than bang my head against a wall pointlessly,
>> I'd cut my losses and move on. There isn't going to be a real MMS spam
>> solution in our lifetimes any more than there's going to be a real email spam
>> solution.
>
>In other words, if the neighborhood gets a little gamey, you just
>abandon it, foisting the problem off to someone else.

Pretty much. There's only so much that one person can do.

>I guess it's a
>little difficult to call you neighbor because you wouldn't be around
>long enough to care.

I actually tend to stay in one place a long time -- perhaps because I choose
with care -- and my neighbors would tell you that I'm a good neighbor. That
I choose not to fight pointless battles is a different matter entirely.

>But, to offer the executive summary to your issue, my email provider
>already offers me a tool for filtering inbound messages using a variety
>of measures to manage an 'allow/deny' list. I haven't seen a spam
>message since it's inception, going on three years now (certainly within
>my lifetime). What is it about this tool that Cingular doesn't
>comprehend?

That it's expensive, impractical, and not currently needed. Cellular spam is
prohibited by Federal law, and is a pretty minor issue thus far -- I've never
gotten a cellular spam even though I have no filtering. By comparison, a
steady trickle of email spam still gets through my extensive spam filtering
(including Brightmail and Bayesian classification).

>Oh, wait... I get it now, Cingular actually charges for
>inbound messaging, so offering a user-managed filtering tool would be
>like blowing off a foot. Yeah, I get it now. Thank you for this moment
>of clarity, John.

Unwarranted and uncalled for. You're making a big mountain out of a small
molehill.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:05:27 -0600,
Jer <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> If it is indeed spam (commercial), there already is a federal law -- see my
>> prior post.
>
>Yeah, I saw your prior post, and it's all fluff. There's more
>exceptions in the 'allow' list as to make it truly ineffectual.

That's simply not true.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

They are "commercial" if sent by a business.

Sound like email to a messaging gateway email address, not messaging to your
phone per se.

Perhaps you (or whomever had the number before you) was careless enough to let
that email address get onto a spam list.

Try asking Cingular to turn off just the gateway.


In <[email protected]> on Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:35:56 -0500, "Mo Mo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John,
>
>It is not commercial spam at all. I get tons of messages from
>administrator, info, register, service, webmaster and [email protected]
>
>Some say nothing, some say your password has been successfully updated,
>some says your account has been suspended for security reasons. All useless
>messages. None of them are trying to sell me anything. There is no way to
>track these down as Cingular good give a crap about me and their other
>customers. The last lady I spoke to yesterday swore I would be getting no
>more spams and here they come again today!
>
>Mo
>
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> If it is indeed spam (commercial), there already is a federal law -- see
>> my
>> prior post.
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 04 Dec 2005
>> 10:16:10
>> -0800, SAA <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>So why don't you wait for that federal law to be proposed, amended,
>>>voted on, passed, and then put into law. When that happens, in maybe
>>>two years during which you are paying for the MMS spam, then file a
>>>complaint with the appropriate agency.
>>>
>>>You are not dealing with the facts as they exist RIGHT NOW. Keep
>>>pestering Cingular, which says they can't do anything about it, or
>>>change your number. The ball is in your court. You might not like
>>>the options but it appears to be the only option you have.
>>>
>>>Reality is a ***** sometimes.
>>>
>>>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 06:53:47 -0600, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>>>>
>>>>> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 4 Dec 2005 01:47:05 -0500,
>>>>> "Mo Mo"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>How in the world can I get Cingular to stop the MMS spam I am getting?
>>>>>>...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Change your phone number.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not an option. That's like you've lived in your house in your pleasant
>>>>neighborhood for 20 years, and new neighbor moves in next door and
>>>>immediately trashes the neighborhood. Am I now expected to move out?
>>>>Not even. Communities have tools to deal with this type of societal
>>>>pimple, and the sooner Cingular decides to be a member of a community
>>>>that cares about it's clients in this context, the better. And don't
>>>>tell me Cingular doesn't have the resources to develop MMS filters AND
>>>>let the client manage their filters via their website, I know they do.
>>>>They just don't want to. The result of this should be federal
>>>>legislation that forces wireless carriers offering MMS to include a
>>>>filtering tool. The lack of this tool is what caused the OP to wade his
>>>>way through one no-service idiot after another - these people don't have
>>>>a viable answer, so they offer stupid crap. Change my phone number?
>>>>You should be spanked for saying that out loud.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:48:23 -0600, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:

>Let me try make this a little more clear... I'm not saying it's
>Cingular's responsibility, I'm saying I want my provider to work with me
>to develop a solution to a growing problem, and I'll pay for the
>privilege of using the feature.

And my response to that is the problem isn't big enough yet for it to
be cost-effective for Cingular to implement a solution like that which
you want.

>So what if it's a couple more bucks a month? I'm not poor.

And my response to that is in Cingular's opinion, there wouldn't be
enough people signing up for it to make it fiscally viable.

>Because I communicate with those broke-dick Beltway dogs regularly. And
>I'm not the newbie you think I am.

99% of the people who claim to not be newbies are newbies, so I give
you the benefit of the doubt.

>> You evidentally think Cingular can just snap their fingers and the
>> ability for them to filter MMS will appear magically out of nowhere.
>
>Actually, no, that's not what I think at all. Other companies using
>enterprise class mail servers do it, including Cingular's own internal
>servers. Why can't Cingular do more and send me the tab?

MMS server software != SMTP/email server software.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:06:26
-0800, Dr. Ray Batty <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:02:33 -0600, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You're right, the ball is in my court, I just don't believe the rules
>>are fair. It's my wireless bill, it should be my decision to determine
>>who is and isn't capable (not simply allowed/disallowed) to contact me.
>
>You should be. But don't think it's Cingular's responsibility to make
>that so for you.

Why not?

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:48:23 -0600,
Jer <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dr. Ray Batty wrote:

> You should be. But don't think it's Cingular's responsibility to make
>> that so for you.
>
>Let me try make this a little more clear... I'm not saying it's
>Cingular's responsibility, I'm saying I want my provider to work with me
>to develop a solution to a growing problem,

What's your evidence of that? Exactly how big is the problem?

>and I'll pay for the
>privilege of using the feature. So what if it's a couple more bucks a
>month? I'm not poor.

Who else will? Cingular can't afford to make a solution for the few.

>> You evidentally think Cingular can just snap their fingers and the
>> ability for them to filter MMS will appear magically out of nowhere.
>
>Actually, no, that's not what I think at all. Other companies using
>enterprise class mail servers do it, including Cingular's own internal
>servers. Why can't Cingular do more and send me the tab?

How much are you willing to pay? The entire cost of implementation?

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In other words, you didn't do that -- you just came here to vent.

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 5 Dec 2005 00:15:55 -0500, "Mo Mo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>LMAO!!

>"Cliff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> So what happened after you send the sms STOP to them?

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:55:00 -0600,
> Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>
>
>>>[shrug] Suit yourself. Rather than bang my head against a wall pointlessly,
>>>I'd cut my losses and move on. There isn't going to be a real MMS spam
>>>solution in our lifetimes any more than there's going to be a real email spam
>>>solution.
>>
>>In other words, if the neighborhood gets a little gamey, you just
>>abandon it, foisting the problem off to someone else.
>
>
> Pretty much. There's only so much that one person can do.


And, I suspect, a lot less that one person is willing to do.

>
>
>>I guess it's a
>>little difficult to call you neighbor because you wouldn't be around
>>long enough to care.
>
>
> I actually tend to stay in one place a long time -- perhaps because I choose
> with care -- and my neighbors would tell you that I'm a good neighbor. That
> I choose not to fight pointless battles is a different matter entirely.

Well, I've been in this neighborhood for 24 years now, I've got a stake
in it's health, safety and well-being for everyone especially the kids,
not just me.


>
>
>>But, to offer the executive summary to your issue, my email provider
>>already offers me a tool for filtering inbound messages using a variety
>>of measures to manage an 'allow/deny' list. I haven't seen a spam
>>message since it's inception, going on three years now (certainly within
>>my lifetime). What is it about this tool that Cingular doesn't
>>comprehend?
>
>
> That it's expensive, impractical, and not currently needed. Cellular spam is
> prohibited by Federal law, and is a pretty minor issue thus far -- I've never
> gotten a cellular spam even though I have no filtering. By comparison, a
> steady trickle of email spam still gets through my extensive spam filtering
> (including Brightmail and Bayesian classification).

That's because your filtering rules aren't as draconian as mine are. I
have an explicit allow list with 26 entries on it, not a single entry
uses REGEX, I don't need a deny list.

>
>
>>Oh, wait... I get it now, Cingular actually charges for
>>inbound messaging, so offering a user-managed filtering tool would be
>>like blowing off a foot. Yeah, I get it now. Thank you for this moment
>>of clarity, John.
>
>
> Unwarranted and uncalled for. You're making a big mountain out of a small
> molehill.

It may seem so now...


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:05:27 -0600,
> Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>If it is indeed spam (commercial), there already is a federal law -- see my
>>>prior post.
>>
>>Yeah, I saw your prior post, and it's all fluff. There's more
>>exceptions in the 'allow' list as to make it truly ineffectual.
>
>
> That's simply not true.
>


Oh? The exception of legally allowing someone to send messages simply
because they have some twisted perception of a prior business
relationship with me is one exception I don't allow. That exception
alone makes the law worthless - my perception rules my filter list -
not theirs. Why is this so difficult to accept?

Personally, I think they understand it perfectly well, they just think
business has some inalienable right to communicate with me. They don't.
And this is why I prefer not to depend on some legal beagle to make
the rules within the context of this thread. It shouldn't be their
choice - it's my device receiving the message, it's me paying the bill,
it should be my choice.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'