|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > February 2006 > Spam filtering??
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Richard Ness 2006-02-26, 5:48 pm |
| Holy Crap!!
I'm getting bombarded by spam on my phone.
8-9 a day.
I would just block via vtext.com, but I want certain devices
to be able to page me when necessary.
I've played with nickname only, but the spammers must have it, because
the crap still gets through.
They are very obvious spams, ones that in the real e-mail world would most
surely get filtered by most any ISP.
VZW needs to get real and start filtering the garbage.
| |
| kevin weaver 2006-02-26, 11:48 pm |
| "Richard Ness" <richard.no@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in message
news:UsSdnc4zEbq9nZ_
ZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@gi
ganews.com...
> Holy Crap!!
>
> I'm getting bombarded by spam on my phone.
> 8-9 a day.
>
> I would just block via vtext.com, but I want certain devices
> to be able to page me when necessary.
>
> I've played with nickname only, but the spammers must have it, because
> the crap still gets through.
>
> They are very obvious spams, ones that in the real e-mail world would most
> surely get filtered by most any ISP.
>
> VZW needs to get real and start filtering the garbage.
>
Why would they ? They make money on it.
| |
| The Ghost of General Lee 2006-02-26, 11:48 pm |
| On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:23:12 -0800, "Richard Ness"
<richard.no@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>Holy Crap!!
>
>I'm getting bombarded by spam on my phone.
>8-9 a day.
>
>I would just block via vtext.com, but I want certain devices
>to be able to page me when necessary.
>
>I've played with nickname only, but the spammers must have it, because
>the crap still gets through.
>
>They are very obvious spams, ones that in the real e-mail world would most
>surely get filtered by most any ISP.
>
>VZW needs to get real and start filtering the garbage.
>
Until and unless they start supporting "white lists", this is an issue
that will continue to plague text messaging users.
| |
|
| kevin weaver wrote:
> "Richard Ness" <richard.no@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> message
> news:UsSdnc4zEbq9nZ_
ZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@gi
ganews.com...
>
> Why would they ? They make money on it.
O.. that makes a lot of sense. The money they make
from txt messaging is from those who pay the monthly
fee for some number of txt msgs. The people who don't
have txt msg options and pay per message don't amount
to anything. Since the obviously don't really use txt messaging
they will just have the option disabled. The people with
txt messaging plans are likely to do the same thing. That
will cost them revenue. I think you can figure out that they
are not changing their bottom line with a few dimes before
people block the option.
-Quick
| |
| Dan Koerner 2006-02-27, 5:48 pm |
| This may help? I put my number in a few weeks ago.
https://www.donotcall.gov/default.aspx
--=20
-Dan-
"Richard Ness" <richard.no@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in message =
news:UsSdnc4zEbq9nZ_
ZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@gi
ganews.com...
> Holy Crap!!
>=20
> I'm getting bombarded by spam on my phone.
> 8-9 a day.
>=20
> I would just block via vtext.com, but I want certain devices
> to be able to page me when necessary.
>=20
> I've played with nickname only, but the spammers must have it, because
> the crap still gets through.
>=20
> They are very obvious spams, ones that in the real e-mail world would =
most
> surely get filtered by most any ISP.
>=20
> VZW needs to get real and start filtering the garbage.=20
>=20
>
| |
| Michael Wise 2006-02-27, 5:48 pm |
| In article <fGuMf.15413$rL5.7459@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> kevin weaver wrote:
>
> O.. that makes a lot of sense. The money they make
> from txt messaging is from those who pay the monthly
> fee for some number of txt msgs. The people who don't
> have txt msg options and pay per message don't amount
> to anything.
Really? So you've seen Verizon's earning statements which is what
qualifies you to make such a claim?
Verizon makes money of all SMS usage. The people who aren't in a txt
plan are gravvy.
Think about it, the OP is saying he gets 8-9 spams sent to his phone
every day. That's 80-90 cents a day. That's $26 a month he hass to pay
VZW. VZW subscribers should not be forced to turn of text messaging
altogether to make up for VZW's incompetent anti-spam management.
Some people like having the option to text if they might some time need
it...but consider it unlikely that they will send/receive the 50
messages a month it takes to reach the messaging plan $5 break point.
--Mike
| |
| Mike T. 2006-02-27, 5:48 pm |
| > Verizon makes money of all SMS usage. The people who aren't in a txt
> plan are gravvy.
>
> Think about it, the OP is saying he gets 8-9 spams sent to his phone
> every day. That's 80-90 cents a day. That's $26 a month he hass to pay
> VZW. VZW subscribers should not be forced to turn of text messaging
> altogether to make up for VZW's incompetent anti-spam management.
>
> Some people like having the option to text if they might some time need
> it...but consider it unlikely that they will send/receive the 50
> messages a month it takes to reach the messaging plan $5 break point.
>
>
> --Mike
That's the way we are. We were Verizon customers for a while, and had text
messaging pay-per-use. Our highest text message bill was for like 4 or 5
text messages in one month. We never got any text message spam. I had
OTHER problems with Verizon billing which caused me to leave Verizon for
Cingular. On Cingular, I had to turn off text messaging AT THE ACCOUNT
LEVEL almost immediately due to text message spam. So we couldn't use text
messaging at all on Cingular, and there were times that we would have liked
to. Then we moved into an area where Cingular has poor tower coverage
(other than that, we'd still be Cingular customers) and switched back to
Verizon. We have had text messaging pay-per-use for several months. We
haven't received one spam text message on Verizon, yet.
I'd prefer to have the text messaging enabled (on a pay per use basis) as 3
or 4 text messages a month is a LOT of text messaging on our account. Some
months we don't text at all, but I'd prefer not to disable that feature. If
our Verizon handsets started getting frequent text spam like our Cingular
handsets did, I wouldn't hesitate to disable text messaging on our Verizon
account.
I'm wondering how certain Verizon handsets get text spammed and certain
others don't??? -Dave
| |
|
| Mike T. wrote:
>
> That's the way we are. We were Verizon customers for a
> while, and had text messaging pay-per-use. Our highest
> text message bill was for like 4 or 5 text messages in
> one month. We never got any text message spam. I had
> OTHER problems with Verizon billing which caused me to
> leave Verizon for Cingular. On Cingular, I had to turn
> off text messaging AT THE ACCOUNT LEVEL almost
> immediately due to text message spam. So we couldn't use
> text messaging at all on Cingular, and there were times
> that we would have liked to. Then we moved into an area
> where Cingular has poor tower coverage (other than that,
> we'd still be Cingular customers) and switched back to
> Verizon. We have had text messaging pay-per-use for
> several months. We haven't received one spam text
> message on Verizon, yet.
>
> I'd prefer to have the text messaging enabled (on a pay
> per use basis) as 3 or 4 text messages a month is a LOT
> of text messaging on our account. Some months we don't
> text at all, but I'd prefer not to disable that feature.
> If our Verizon handsets started getting frequent text
> spam like our Cingular handsets did, I wouldn't hesitate
> to disable text messaging on our Verizon account.
>
> I'm wondering how certain Verizon handsets get text
> spammed and certain others don't??? -Dave
Some is a result of "text this number for a FREE ringtone".
Some is from scanning. The cell prefixes are known and
you simply run through the numbers. Those who are
spammed heavily most likely did something like the first
case above or otherwise (inadvertently?) verified their
number or nickname as a valid txt message address.
-Quick
| |
|
| Michael Wise wrote:
> In article
> <fGuMf.15413$rL5.7459@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Really? So you've seen Verizon's earning statements which
> is what qualifies you to make such a claim?
uhhh, reasonable thought process and just a touch of
large volume business awareness will lead you to this
conclusion.
> Verizon makes money of all SMS usage. The people who
> aren't in a txt plan are gravvy.
Yes that is true. Insignificant and practically not measurable,
but true.
> Think about it, the OP is saying he gets 8-9 spams sent
> to his phone every day. That's 80-90 cents a day. That's
> $26 a month he hass to pay VZW.
Yes, you're absolutely right again. Now (if you didn't turn
it off), just how bright would you have to be to figure out that
the $5 a month txt msg option would be less expensive?
You managed the math above so I think you could do it.
If you used or had a need for txt messages you would have
already been on a plan. If you didn't you would have just
had the feature turned off. That was my point. There are
not going to be a measurable number of zombies paying
$0.10 per message for moderate to high volume. Although
your reply gives me pause.
> VZW subscribers should not be forced to turn of text
> messaging altogether to make up for VZW's incompetent
> anti-spam management.
I didn't know they had any obligation to manage spam?
It would certainly make their features more attractive but
I'm not sure that's required to be competitive at the moment.
I believe that VZW does protect customer privacy better
than any other large carrier by a long shot. (I was impressed
when they were the only carrier that refused to participate in
the cellular 411 directory).
> Some people like having the option to text if they might
> some time need it...but consider it unlikely that they
> will send/receive the 50 messages a month it takes to
> reach the messaging plan $5 break point.
Well, life is tough and you're not always going to be provided
with what you like. I would like to purchase my TV usage at
home by the hour. I can get it by the hour dropping quarters
in the slot at the airport but it's not cost effective.
I know my daughter feels that txt messaging is an entitlement
but I'm not sure I agree.
-Quick
| |
| Michael Wise 2006-02-27, 5:48 pm |
| In article <r4HMf.35669$Jd.29673@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> uhhh, reasonable thought process and just a touch of
> large volume business awareness will lead you to this
> conclusion.
>
Nope just speculation and opinion would lead one to that conclusion.
>
> Yes that is true. Insignificant and practically not measurable,
> but true.
"practically not measurable"? So then you have seen VZW's earnings
statements? Didn't think so.
Just one customer (the OP) generates a good $26/month for them in text
message revenue...and that person isn't even on a plan. Considering each
message is ten cents (when not a plan), that starts adding up to a chunk
of change when one takes into account the millions of customers VZW has.
VZW has no business interest in curtailing spam to their users' cell
phones when they (VZW) make money on every text...whether it was
solicited or not.
>
> Yes, you're absolutely right again. Now (if you didn't turn
> it off), just how bright would you have to be to figure out that
> the $5 a month txt msg option would be less expensive?
Why should one be forced to pay for unlimited messaging when their needs
don't merit it and paying that fee is only to minimize the damage of
VZW's: a) incompetent anti-spam efforts? b) and VZW's continued refusal
to give its customers the tools to permit SMS from customer-identified
sources only?
> You managed the math above so I think you could do it.
> If you used or had a need for txt messages you would have
> already been on a plan.
If one doesn't have the need to send/receive 50 or more LEGITIMATE SMS
messages a month, it's not economically wise to pay the $5/month for
VZW's plan.
> If you didn't you would have just
> had the feature turned off. That was my point. There are
> not going to be a measurable number of zombies paying
> $0.10 per message for moderate to high volume. Although
> your reply gives me pause.
Again, your opinion flies in the face of economic reality. Why do you
think VZW raised the price of a la carte SMS messages from 2 cents to 10
cents per? Having managed mail servers (including SMS gateways) for 15
years, I can tell you it sure as hell doesn't cost them anywhere near
that much to deliver said messages.
I'm sure they make tons of money off a la carte SMS delivery to their
users....whether said SMS messages were solicited or not.
>
> I didn't know they had any obligation to manage spam?
If they are going to charge their customers for every message
received...whether solicited or not...they better damn well be obligated
to implement competent anti-spam measures (which thousands of us mail
server admins do with our servers every day). It is not difficult to do,
but VZW has no financial incentive to do so.
> It would certainly make their features more attractive but
> I'm not sure that's required to be competitive at the moment.
> I believe that VZW does protect customer privacy better
> than any other large carrier by a long shot. (I was impressed
> when they were the only carrier that refused to participate in
> the cellular 411 directory).
No argument there. But being less bad in that regard than the rest does
not make them good in that regard.
>
>
> Well, life is tough and you're not always going to be provided
> with what you like. rt but it's not cost effective.
I see so your whole argument about customers being charged for
unsolicited SMS messages is: "Life is tough. They should sign up for a
text plan, since VZW refuses to do the right thing."
> I would like to purchase my TV usage at
> home by the hour. I can get it by the hour dropping quarters
> in the slot at the airpo
How about this. How about if DirecTV, Dish, or whatever cable provider
you have came out with a plan where you could have unlimited
pay-per-views (PPV) each month for $20 and charged $5 for a la carte
PPVs for people on on the $20 plan. Now lets say you didn't expect to
watch $20 of pay-per-views per month, so you opted not to have the
plan...but you still wanted the ability to watch PPVs. No your sitting
in front of your TV watching some network show and the channel changes
to a PPV movie (without your authorization and consent). You change it
back and think nothing of it. You get your bill and see there are 10
PPV's on that month's bill for a total of $50.
Most people would be pissed. You, on the other hand, would not
be...because "life is tough" and you should have signed up for the PPV
plan.
--Mike
| |
| Joe Makowiec 2006-02-27, 5:48 pm |
| On 27 Feb 2006 in alt.cellular.verizon, Quick wrote:
> Mike T. wrote:
>
> Some is a result of "text this number for a FREE ringtone".
> Some is from scanning. The cell prefixes are known and
> you simply run through the numbers. Those who are
> spammed heavily most likely did something like the first
> case above or otherwise (inadvertently?) verified their
> number or nickname as a valid txt message address.
Some of it's going to be due to whoever had the number before you.
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
| |
| Mike T. 2006-02-27, 5:48 pm |
| >
> Some of it's going to be due to whoever had the number before you.
>
So if you're not getting text spam, be sure to port your number to your new
provider!!! -Dave
|
|
|
|
|