MMS SPAM.

John Navas wrote:
> They are "commercial" if sent by a business.
>
> Sound like email to a messaging gateway email address, not messaging to your
> phone per se.

But, if there was a recepient based filter feature, it wouldn't matter,
would it? Instead, we're expected to spend countless hours on the phone
trying to "fix" this **** with a system that's already broken from the
git-go. That's just plain stupid.

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

See above.

>
> Try asking Cingular to turn off just the gateway.

See above.

>
>
> 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>
>>
>


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

---

› See More: MMS SPAM.

Dr. Ray Batty wrote:
> 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.

Okay. Fine. Tell me that then. What's with all this bull**** about
not possible?

>
>
>>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.

See above.

>
>
>>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.

See above.

>
>
>>>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.

Dr, I'm aware of that. But the message header details are not hidden,
hence doable.


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

John Navas wrote:
> [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?

If it's deposited in my inbox, it's a huge problem for me.

>
>
>>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.

I genuinely suspect most people haven't a clue about where this issue is
headed. By the time they do, we'll be buried with crap. Let's think of
this plan of mine as a preemptive strike at the heart of the matter.

>
>
>>>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?

If I beleived that was the sole reason for not doing it, I'd actually
ask for a quote. I'm not asking.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:19:57 -0600,
Jer <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:

>> 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. ...

Undoubtedly. I consider collateral damage to be unacceptable.

>> Unwarranted and uncalled for. You're making a big mountain out of a small
>> molehill.
>
>It may seem so now...

Now is what we're talking about, not some speculative future.

--
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 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:20:01 -0600,
Jer <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> 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?

Because it's (a) unworkable and (b) not what the law says. Since you
apparently missed it the first time, here it is again:

If you have registered your cell phone number on the National Do-Not-Call
Registry, no one may make a telephone solicitation to that telephone
number, unless you have given prior express permission for the solicitation
or have an established business relationship with the caller. If you tell a
company not to call again - even if it has a business relationship with you
- that company is prohibited from calling you with solicitations.

--
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 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:20:04 -0600,
Jer <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:

>> They are "commercial" if sent by a business.
>>
>> Sound like email to a messaging gateway email address, not messaging to your
>> phone per se.
>
>But, if there was a recepient based filter feature, it wouldn't matter,
>would it?

Of course it would matter -- this source is email, not MMS, and thus there is
no phone number or other way to positively identify the sender.

>Instead, we're expected to spend countless hours on the phone
>trying to "fix" this **** with a system that's already broken from the
>git-go. That's just plain stupid.

I disagree -- this is really an email issue, not an MMS issue.

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

I think it quite likely that this is an email address that was inadvertently
compromised. If so, railing at the carrier is disingenuous at best.

>> Try asking Cingular to turn off just the gateway.
>
>See above.

Mindless carrier bashing.

--
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 Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:32:36 -0600,
Jer <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dr. Ray Batty wrote:

>> 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.
>
>Okay. Fine. Tell me that then. What's with all this bull**** about
>not possible?

No carrier is obligated to do whatever you might want.
If you don't like the service, switch carriers.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:36:16 -0600,
Jer <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> In <[email protected]> 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,
>>
>> What's your evidence of that? Exactly how big is the problem?
>
>If it's deposited in my inbox, it's a huge problem for me.

The world doesn't revolve around you, and the carrier isn't responsible for
whatever mistakes you might have made.

>>>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.
>
>I genuinely suspect most people haven't a clue about where this issue is
>headed.

Where you *think* it's headed.

>By the time they do, we'll be buried with crap.

If so, then it will be time to do something about it.

>Let's think of
>this plan of mine as a preemptive strike at the heart of the matter.

No need. Makes no sense.

>> How much are you willing to pay? The entire cost of implementation?
>
>If I beleived that was the sole reason for not doing it, I'd actually
>ask for a quote. I'm not asking.

Because you aren't willing to pay what it costs.

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

John Navas wrote:
> 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.

Prohibiting spam is NOT prohibiting speech. It's a time-and-manner
prohibition; you prohibit the manner of speech, just as you're doing
when you outlaw sound trucks advertising throughout the neighborhood.
Perfectly moral, legal and sound in principle.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Mo Mo wrote:
> spam all coming from a few [email protected]

Any help from Sprint's CS?


To address Navas' comments that it may not be an issue now and carriers
not likely to spend money to address an issue affecting a few
people...thats most likely true, but if mobile spam does get to be a big
problem, carriers are going to have to address it from a financial point
of view.

They could easily add a "spam issue" tick to the apps the CS agents use
and start tracking the spam issues, then weight that cumlative cost of
tendering those unresolvable calls to implementing a server sided spam
filter. Thats a reoccurring cost versus a one time cost.

Server side spam filters can be very, very effective. I posted not long
ago somewhere how effective the Yahoo mail filters were. I've gotten
18,000 plus messages that Yahoo marked as spam and only one was a valid
(thought not at all critical) message intended to me, and of the 2,000
plus emails to date, I only recall less than 6 were spam that got past
their filters.

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:19:57 -0600,
> Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>
>
>>>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. ...
>
>
> Undoubtedly. I consider collateral damage to be unacceptable.

Well then, it would seem our definitions of collateral are quite
different. In my world, if I haven't permitted you to talk to me, and
you attempt to do so despite that, you become collaterally damaged, ie.
your spam is killed the instant it attempts to enter my inbox. IOW, if
I don't allow it, it won't be stored waiting to be downloaded. I don't
allow trash in my inbox, and I won't store something I don't want.
Someone may have a constitutional right to send spam, but spam has no
constitutional right to be seen, stored, downloaded, nor read by anyone.
I won't play their game. Game over.

>
>
>>>Unwarranted and uncalled for. You're making a big mountain out of a small
>>>molehill.
>>
>>It may seem so now...
>
>
> Now is what we're talking about, not some speculative future.
>

I have no intention of waiting for the cows to exit the barn before
becoming concerned about their departure.


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

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:20:01 -0600,
> Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>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?
>
>
> Because it's (a) unworkable and (b) not what the law says. Since you
> apparently missed it the first time, here it is again:
>
> If you have registered your cell phone number on the National Do-Not-Call
> Registry, no one may make a telephone solicitation to that telephone
> number, unless you have given prior express permission for the solicitation
> or have an established business relationship with the caller. If you tell a
> company not to call again - even if it has a business relationship with you
> - that company is prohibited from calling you with solicitations.
>


Okay, I'm going to try this one more time... I DON'T CARE WHAT THE LAW
ALLOWS, THE LAW DOESN'T CONTROL MY INBOX - I DO.


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

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:20:04 -0600,
> Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>
>
>>>They are "commercial" if sent by a business.
>>>
>>>Sound like email to a messaging gateway email address, not messaging to your
>>>phone per se.
>>
>>But, if there was a recepient based filter feature, it wouldn't matter,
>>would it?
>
>
> Of course it would matter -- this source is email, not MMS, and thus there is
> no phone number or other way to positively identify the sender.

Okay, have I used the 'email' term? I don't want to confuse. You're
right, email and SMS and MMS are different message types. But, I've
seen a header record of each and they're all capable of being tracked
and filtered.

>
>
>>Instead, we're expected to spend countless hours on the phone
>>trying to "fix" this **** with a system that's already broken from the
>>git-go. That's just plain stupid.
>
>
> I disagree -- this is really an email issue, not an MMS issue.

The issue I'm commenting about is an inbox issue, whether email, SMS, or
MMS.

>
>
>>>Perhaps you (or whomever had the number before you) was careless enough to let
>>>that email address get onto a spam list.
>>
>>See above.
>
>
> I think it quite likely that this is an email address that was inadvertently
> compromised. If so, railing at the carrier is disingenuous at best.

With an inbox filter, I don't care.

>
>
>>>Try asking Cingular to turn off just the gateway.
>>
>>See above.
>
>
> Mindless carrier bashing.
>

With an inbox filter, I don't care.



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

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:32:36 -0600,
> Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Dr. Ray Batty wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>>Okay. Fine. Tell me that then. What's with all this bull**** about
>>not possible?
>
>
> No carrier is obligated to do whatever you might want.
> If you don't like the service, switch carriers.
>


Well, if there was one that offered me the feature of filtering inbound
message traffic, I would.

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

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:36:16 -0600,
> Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>In <[email protected]> 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,
>>>
>>>What's your evidence of that? Exactly how big is the problem?
>>
>>If it's deposited in my inbox, it's a huge problem for me.
>
>
> The world doesn't revolve around you, and the carrier isn't responsible for
> whatever mistakes you might have made.

But John, my world does revolve around me, and my inbox. Where did I
advocate the carrier is responsible for my mistakes? I'm simply asking
the carrier to offer me a feature that helps me help myself. My
internet email carrier does and I'm paying for that, why can't Cingular?

>
>
>>>>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.
>>
>>I genuinely suspect most people haven't a clue about where this issue is
>>headed.
>
>
> Where you *think* it's headed.

Of course it's where I think it's headed - it's me talking here isn't it?

>
>
>>By the time they do, we'll be buried with crap.
>
>
> If so, then it will be time to do something about it.

Aw, come on John, you aren't that dense about planning, are you?

>
>
>>Let's think of
>>this plan of mine as a preemptive strike at the heart of the matter.
>
>
> No need. Makes no sense.

I suppose a lot of plans don't make sense when they're first scribbled
out on a dinner napkin and proposed to the Clue Free Zone.


>
>
>>>How much are you willing to pay? The entire cost of implementation?
>>
>>If I beleived that was the sole reason for not doing it, I'd actually
>>ask for a quote. I'm not asking.
>
>
> Because you aren't willing to pay what it costs.
>

How do you or anyone know what I'm not willing to pay for?


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