 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / December 2005MMS SPAM.
How in the world can I get Cingular to stop the MMS spam I am getting? I can't even get to their tech support. They tell me I can't call till Monday which is unbelievable to me. Anyway I get about 30 messages a day that are spam all coming from a few addresses@pm.sprint.com. I called 12 -1 to complain about mms messages. Cingular said they couldn't stop them and turned off my internet and ability to send pictures. I called on 12-3 when I discovered my Internet and picture sending abilities were turned off. The rep turned them back on for me and said she had stopped all the spam mms messages from reaching me. This was not the case. I called back around 12:15 a.m. on 12-4 and the customer service rep said she would put me on a do not solicit list and that would stop everything. Yeah right. I had this happen when I was a sprint customer once and they opened a trouble ticket for me and took care of it. I've talked to 3 customer no-service people now. They tell me it is impossible to block a domain. Come on... Ok now here is the real kicker. Customer no-service tells me that once I go over my 40 messages since I have the media basic package that I will have to pay them 10 cents per message. Well I've already way exceeded that. How can they get away with forcing me to pay for messages I do not want? I find this extremely difficult to believe, but had no success after several calls to customer service. Oh yeah, the rep told me "You should text message them back asking to be removed from their list or reply with the word STOP" Yeah right! Has anyone else had any luck getting something like this fixed? I pity those with Cingular and other carriers that charge for incoming messages. Your future is dim & expensive as the spammer's transition to SMS and other methods of phone spam. You have no SPAM filtering capability. HELP! >How in the world can I get Cingular to stop the MMS spam I am getting? ... Change your phone number.  SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > >>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. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' doesnt the FTC now have a inclusion to the DNC list for cell numbers? marx404 >doesnt the FTC now have a inclusion to the DNC list for cell numbers? Applicable law in addition to DNC is TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act). Note that DNC only prohibits "commercial" contacts. For more information see <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/canspam.html>: Under the TCPA rules, a 'call' includes text messaging if the messaging is sent to a telephone number rather than to an e-mail address." ... Text messages to wireless devices Those text messages that are sent through what looks like an e-mail address must also comply with the rules about wireless e-mail discussed above. Most types of text messages, however, are sent from one cell phone to another and are not covered by the CAN-SPAM Act. Nonetheless, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the National Do-Not-Call Registry already provide certain protections to wireless phone subscribers. * No one may use an automatic dialing machine to call your wireless phone number - including to send a text message to that telephone number - unless you have given prior express permission for the call or the call is made for an emergency purpose, i.e., the call is necessary in a situation that affects the health and safety of consumers. There is a limited exception allowing cell phone companies to contact their own subscribers. * 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. ... What Should You Do if You Receive an Unwanted Commercial Message on Your Cell Phone? If you receive (1) an unwanted commercial message sent to a wireless device, or (2) a telephone solicitation made to a wireless device for which the phone number was registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, or (3) any autodialed text message on your cell phone or wireless device, you may file a complaint with the FCC. While the FCC cannot award monetary or other damages and does not settle individual consumer complaints against spammers and telemarketers, it can issue citations or impose fines against those violating the CAN-SPAM Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and the FCC's related rules. [MORE] SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> Yes, and I am on it. That has nothing to do with spam mails. > doesnt the FTC now have a inclusion to the DNC list for cell numbers? > > marx404 Actually it does. See my prior post on applicable law. >Yes, and I am on it. That has nothing to do with spam mails. >> doesnt the FTC now have a inclusion to the DNC list for cell numbers? SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>>How in the world can I get Cingular to stop the MMS spam I am getting? ... >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >a viable answer, so they offer stupid crap. Change my phone number? >You should be spanked for saying that out loud. [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. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [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. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. >>[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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And that's entirely because we have a Congress that's bent on enriching > itself at the expense of the American people. Yeah, no sh.t. I couldn't care less what Congress or any other Beltway twit claims to do to help me - it's all fluff and ineffective. I want my own provider to stand up, make a commitment, and help me help myself deal with a growing problem. Hiding behind some broke-dick Beltway dog isn't helping and it isn't going to. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> [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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>> [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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. >>>> [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 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >when you outlaw sound trucks advertising throughout the neighborhood. >Perfectly moral, legal and sound in principle. I disagree. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>>>> [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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I disagree. "Free speech isn't free when it comes postage-due." -- Jim Nitchals SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. >>>>>> [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 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >"Free speech isn't free when it comes postage-due." -- Jim Nitchals Sound bites don't really add anything to the discussion. If you have an authoritative citation on the law, then post it; e.g., R. Jonas Geissler, "Whether 'Anti-Spam' Laws Violate The First Amendment", 2001 J. Online L. art. 8 <http://www.wm.edu/law/publications/jol/articles/geissler.shtml> Conclusion {par. 37} The proposed federal anti-spam law would UNCONSTITUTIONALLY limit speech because the government interest in preventing mere annoyance is not the sort of compelling interest needed to limit core political speech--the inevitable effect of the proposed statute. Adequate responses to the problem of spamming already exist. Spamming can be regulated by private civil actions, by public criminal actions, and by the market place of ideas, without the need for a separate general anti-spam law. Any attempt to impose specific anti-spam regulations beyond mere time, place and manner restrictions such as requiring accurate return addresses, would needlessly and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY limit free speech. [emphasis added] Cellular spam (as distinct from spam in general) is already (constitutionally) prohibited by Federal law -- see my prior posts. Thus no further law is either needed or appropriate. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>>>> It's actually more a matter of the US Constitution -- there are serious >>>>> constitutional issues in prohibiting speech. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > political speech--the inevitable effect of the proposed statute. > [snip] Heard all about these analyses. Every single one of them goes after the red herring and fails to address the theft problem. Spam is theft no matter how you decorate it with lovely free-speech banners. There cannot reasonably be any requirement that I pay for anyone else's free speech, and no one could ever morally justify such a requirement. However, the You-CAN-SPAM Act now legalizes this theft when spammers meet a few perfunctory requirements (which hardly any spammer meets anyway). If you want law, go back to 1997 when Rep. Christopher Smith proposed the only really decent spam law; it would have changed the junk fax law to include e-mail, and give e-mail status equal to faxes. Note that if there was any free-speech objection to the junk fax laws, it was laughed into oblivion for the reasons I gave above: you can't steal to promulgate your free-speech message. Last word to you. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. >>>>>> It's actually more a matter of the US Constitution -- there are serious >>>>>> constitutional issues in prohibiting speech. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >theft no matter how you decorate it with lovely free-speech banners. >... If there really was a theft problem, then these smart folks would undoubtedly address it. SignatureBest 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] > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > If there really was a theft problem, then these smart folks would undoubtedly > address it. Clearly, our definitions of 'smart' are different. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 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. I guess it's a little difficult to call you neighbor because you wouldn't be around long enough to care. 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? 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. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >In other words, if the neighborhood gets a little gamey, you just >abandon it, foisting the problem off to someone else. I guess it's a >little difficult to call you neighbor because you wouldn't be around >long enough to care. Don't even think about lying and say you are NOT a flat-out rookie on the Internet. Your naivety all but guarantees you are. >But, to offer the executive summary to your issue, my email provider >already offers me a tool for filtering inbound messages using a variety [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >like blowing off a foot. Yeah, I get it now. Thank you for this moment >of clarity, John. Problem is you are like the person complaining of email spam in 1995. The problem isn't big enough, and there aren't enough "victims" to make fiscal sense for Cingular to do what you want. Cingular has to decide: (1) Create SMS filtering system for $10M for 100 complainers or (2) tell complainers they have to use alternate solutions [e.g., pay for more MMS, change phone #, etc.]. You can see the decision they are choosing. So I would submit to you: Your solution to MMS spam is just like my solution to email spam was in 1995. I created custom Procmail scripts to deal with it. You will have to deal with it on your own -- either pay for more MMS, dump Cingular, change phone #, disable MMS, etc. But your belief that Cingular should spend a ton of their own money to develop a solution evidentally affecting a very very small percentage of their users is Fantasyland. At least in 12/2005. >> [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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Unwarranted and uncalled for. You're making a big mountain out of a small > molehill. It may seem so now... Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >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. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 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. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >constitutional right to be seen, stored, downloaded, nor read by anyone. > I won't play their game. Game over. No thanks. By your rules I would (for example) have missed a recent email from a good childhood friend I had lost touch with. We clearly have different standards. SignatureBest 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] > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > from a good childhood friend I had lost touch with. We clearly have different > standards. Yes, by my rules you'd lose, presuming the only method of contacting you is by a single form of electronic messaging service - and I don't believe that for a minute. I, OTOH, have four different methods for others to contact me. Anybody can use any one or a combination of these to put a message in front of me, at no time will that message be mistaken for spam despite the manner of it's delivery, and the nature of the message will be clearly understood to be personal. The details of three of these methods are a matter of public record available to anyone with a desire to contact me for any reason they deem necessary. You see John, over here in my little patch of the garden, I don't recommend anyone use an unsolicited electronic message to contact me. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >is by a single form of electronic messaging service - and I don't >believe that for a minute. You would nonetheless be wrong. >You see >John, over here in my little patch of the garden, I don't recommend >anyone use an unsolicited electronic message to contact me. I choose to live in a less draconian world. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> 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 bitch sometimes. >> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >a viable answer, so they offer stupid crap. Change my phone number? >You should be spanked for saying that out loud. If it is indeed spam (commercial), there already is a federal law -- see my prior post. >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 [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >>a viable answer, so they offer stupid crap. Change my phone number? >>You should be spanked for saying that out loud. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > 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. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> 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. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >>>>If it is indeed spam (commercial), there already is a federal law -- see my >>>>prior post. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >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. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 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. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >Okay, I'm going to try this one more time... I DON'T CARE WHAT THE LAW >ALLOWS, ... Got it. Do you drive the same way? SignatureBest 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] > >>Okay, I'm going to try this one more time... I DON'T CARE WHAT THE LAW >>ALLOWS, ... > > Got it. Do you drive the same way? My response here will be predicated on the above partial snip of my prior comment, which apparently is intended to alter the original context of my prior comment... Yes sir, I do. The law allows me to drive up to, but not exceeding the posted speed limit. I rarely drive at the posted speed limit, more often than not, I drive slower than that. Surprised? Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >>>Okay, I'm going to try this one more time... I DON'T CARE WHAT THE LAW >>>ALLOWS, ... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >at the posted speed limit, more often than not, I drive slower than >that. Surprised? Not really. Your posts are infused with situational ethics and self-interest. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Got it. Do you drive the same way? Not relevant - you control the speed you want to drive within the posted limits and which roads to avoid traffic jams. >> Got it. Do you drive the same way? > >Not relevant - you control the speed you want to drive within the posted >limits and which roads to avoid traffic jams. Yet again we'll just have to agree to disagree. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> John, It is not commercial spam at all. I get tons of messages from administrator, info, register, service, webmaster and support@pm.sprint.com 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 > If it is indeed spam (commercial), there already is a federal law -- see > my [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >>>a viable answer, so they offer stupid crap. Change my phone number? >>>You should be spanked for saying that out loud. 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. >John, > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >>>>a viable answer, so they offer stupid crap. Change my phone number? >>>>You should be spanked for saying that out loud. SignatureBest 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. 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 sh.t 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. >>John, >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >>>>>a viable answer, so they offer stupid crap. Change my phone number? >>>>>You should be spanked for saying that out loud. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> They are "commercial" if sent by a business. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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 sh.t 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. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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 sh.t 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. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > 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. I'd really prefer to deal with this issue with my provider directly, instead of depending on a broken bureaucracy to come riding on a horse to launch a flaming rescue attempt. > 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. 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. > Reality is a bitch 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. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >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 bitch 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. Of course they could snap their fingers. This is basic mailserver 101. The ability to block senders has been around for many years. >>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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You evidentally think Cingular can just snap their fingers and the > ability for them to filter MMS will appear magically out of nowhere. > Of course they could snap their fingers. This is basic mailserver 101. The > ability to block senders has been around for many years. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>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. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >>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 bitch 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? Signaturejer 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. >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > enterprise class mail servers do it, including Cingular's own internal > servers. Why can't Cingular do more and send me the tab? >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. >>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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 bullshit 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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > MMS server software != SMTP/email server software. Dr, I'm aware of that. But the message header details are not hidden, hence doable. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> 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 bullshit about >not possible? No carrier is obligated to do whatever you might want. If you don't like the service, switch carriers. SignatureBest 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] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> 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. There's a message there. Think about it carefully. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >Okay. Fine. Tell me that then. What's with all this bullshit about >not possible? "Not possible" does not mean impossible to implement. It means impossible to do at the moment. >Dr, I'm aware of that. But the message header details are not hidden, >hence doable. See above. > 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? SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 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. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >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. SignatureBest 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] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 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? Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >But John, my world does revolve around me, and my inbox. And there we have it. >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? Presumably because it doesn't see a good reason to do so. I suggest you help yourself. >> 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? I'm that realistic and practical. >> Because you aren't willing to pay what it costs. > >How do you or anyone know what I'm not willing to pay for? I'm pretty sure I know, but feel free to set the record straight. SignatureBest 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] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I suggest you help yourself. That's what I'm trying to do, John, but I see no reason why I have to be alone in the attempt. >>>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? > > I'm that realistic and practical. And from the sounds of it, already lost before getting started. >>>Because you aren't willing to pay what it costs. >> >>How do you or anyone know what I'm not willing to pay for? > > I'm pretty sure I know, but feel free to set the record straight. You'll be the second to know. Sorry, my PFA is first. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> I suggest you help yourself. > >That's what I'm trying to do, John, but I see no reason why I have to be >alone in the attempt. Self help is done by yourself. Instead you're expecting Cingular to do the heavy lifting, at considerable cost in resources, and just to satisfy you. SignatureBest 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] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Self help is done by yourself. Instead you're expecting Cingular to do the > heavy lifting, at considerable cost in resources, and just to satisfy you. Clearly, our definitions of 'self-help' are different. I don't believe I've ever said I'm expecting anything, John, I'm asking for help to a problem that is growing in magnitude and affecting more people as time rolls by. I've even intimated I'd shoulder my share of the heavy lifting. We are all welcome to our own opinions, but none of us are welcome to misrepresent that of another as you seem to be doing above. I'd like to take this opportunity to caution you in this regard. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >>>>I suggest you help yourself. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Clearly, our definitions of 'self-help' are different. I think the universal definition is pretty clear. >I don't believe >I've ever said I'm expecting anything, John, I'm asking for help to a That's a contradiction. >problem that is growing in magnitude and affecting more people as time >rolls by. Evidence? >I've even intimated I'd shoulder my share of the heavy >lifting. Not really. >We are all welcome to our own opinions, Yep. >but none of us are >welcome to misrepresent that of another as you seem to be doing above. >I'd like to take this opportunity to caution you in this regard. Knock yourself out. I think you're projecting. SignatureBest 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] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I think the universal definition is pretty clear. I also think the universal definition is pretty clear, but when did you get the impression that I subscribed to it? >>I don't believe >>I've ever said I'm expecting anything, John, I'm asking for help to a > > That's a contradiction. I disagree. > > >>problem that is growing in magnitude and affecting more people as time >>rolls by. > > Evidence? Evidence? Since when do I need any sort of evidence to ask for something I want? and even willing to pay for? >>I've even intimated I'd shoulder my share of the heavy >>lifting. > > Not really. hmmm... interesting... did you blink while you were reading my prior comments? >>We are all welcome to our own opinions, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Knock yourself out. I think you're projecting. I disagree. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >>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? SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> There must be a better way John. :( > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Change your phone number. >I've talked to 3 customer no-service people now. They tell me it is >impossible to block a domain. What that apparently means is that Cingular has not implemented that in their software. Sounds perfectly beliveable to me. >I pity those with Cingular and other carriers that charge for incoming >messages. Your future is dim & expensive as the spammer's transition to SMS >and other methods of phone spam. You have no SPAM filtering capability. >HELP! You have lots of options: 1. Disable (incoming) SMS. 2. Change your phone number. 3. Upgrade youe plan to include more SMS. 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. 5. Complain to the domain of the SMS. >>I've talked to 3 customer no-service people now. They tell me it is >>impossible to block a domain. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > 1. Disable (incoming) SMS. Client loses. > 2. Change your phone number. Client loses. > 3. Upgrade youe plan to include more SMS. Cingular wins. > 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. Not possible with Cingular - they don't support the necessary software that a smart phone requires to fulfill this feature dependency. > 5. Complain to the domain of the SMS. There's so many hijacked email servers... Am I now expected to do my own forensics to determine it's true source just so I can lodge a complaint in a country that couldn't care les about U.S. laws? Too funny. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' Thank you Jer. People here just don't get it! >>>I've talked to 3 customer no-service people now. They tell me it is >>>impossible to block a domain. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > forensics to determine it's true source just so I can lodge a complaint in > a country that couldn't care les about U.S. laws? Too funny. Are you kidding me? See my comments after each of your suggestions. > On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 01:47:05 -0500, "Mo Mo" > <cell@nospam.sleepinggiants.no-ip.com> wrote: > >I've talked to 3 customer no-service people now. They tell me it is > >impossible to block a domain. > What that apparently means is that Cingular has not implemented that > in their software. Sounds perfectly beliveable to me. > >I pity those with Cingular and other carriers that charge for incoming > >messages. Your future is dim & expensive as the spammer's transition to > >SMS > >and other methods of phone spam. You have no SPAM filtering capability. > >HELP! > You have lots of options: > 1. Disable (incoming) SMS. They are MMS messages not SMS and even if they were sms NO. I shouldn't have to lose fucntionality when I am forced to stay with Cingular due to their contract. I use SMS messaging. > 2. Change your phone number. Again, No. This is not a solution. Hundreds of people have my number, I use it for business. > 3. Upgrade youe plan to include more SMS. 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. > 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. > 5. Complain to the domain of the SMS. Been there, done that, they are not sending the messages. They are spam. Heck the from could have your email address. It doesn't mean you are the one sending them. :) >> 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. >> 3. Upgrade youe plan to include more SMS. > >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. >> 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, Are you kidding? Your response is laughable at best. >>> 2. Change your phone number. >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > problaby whine too if they did create such a website but charged you > $5.00/month to utilize it, >>>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. < |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message