Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

Google Pixel 8a, Android 15

A few minutes go I noticed a notification dot on the Google phone app
icon on my home screen. Recents didn't show a call, but there was a
new voicemail. It was definitely a spam message: some guy who sounded
like poor-quality speech generation said he was Attorney something
"with the consumer protection agency" (which is not the name of a
Federal or California state bureau) and wanted me to call him at some
800 number. Needless to say, I didn't.

Is it possible to send a voicemail to an Android phone without
actually calling the phone?

Do you have spam filtering enabled with whomever is your cellular
provider? If so, they may send spam straight to voicemail rather than
issue a call.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Google Pixel 8a, Android 15

A few minutes go I noticed a notification dot on the Google phone app
icon on my home screen. Recents didn't show a call, but there was a
new voicemail. It was definitely a spam message: some guy who sounded
like poor-quality speech generation said he was Attorney something
"with the consumer protection agency" (which is not the name of a
Federal or California state bureau) and wanted me to call him at some
800 number. Needless to say, I didn't.

Is it possible to send a voicemail to an Android phone without
actually calling the phone?

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 26.03.25 22:35, Stan Brown wrote:

Google Pixel 8a, Android 15

A few minutes go I noticed a notification dot on the Google phone app
icon on my home screen. Recents didn't show a call, but there was a
new voicemail. It was definitely a spam message: some guy who sounded
like poor-quality speech generation said he was Attorney something
"with the consumer protection agency" (which is not the name of a
Federal or California state bureau) and wanted me to call him at some
800 number. Needless to say, I didn't.

Is it possible to send a voicemail to an Android phone without
actually calling the phone?

If the voicebox resides on the operator's system it is usually possible.
To get there additional digits have to be added.

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 26.03.25 22:43, VanguardLH wrote:

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

Google Pixel 8a, Android 15

A few minutes go I noticed a notification dot on the Google phone app
icon on my home screen. Recents didn't show a call, but there was a
new voicemail. It was definitely a spam message: some guy who sounded
like poor-quality speech generation said he was Attorney something
"with the consumer protection agency" (which is not the name of a
Federal or California state bureau) and wanted me to call him at some
800 number. Needless to say, I didn't.

Is it possible to send a voicemail to an Android phone without
actually calling the phone?

Do you have spam filtering enabled with whomever is your cellular
provider? If so, they may send spam straight to voicemail rather than
issue a call.

No. They may not because no one is so stupid.

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Stan Brown wrote:

A few minutes go I noticed a notification dot on the Google phone app
icon on my home screen. Recents didn't show a call, but there was a
new voicemail.

Had you been on a call, or had DnD enabled?

Apparently some marketers are so desperate they use "ringless voice
mail" systems

<https://www.ringover.co.uk/blog/how-to-leave-a-voicemail-without-calling#title-2>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

Stan Brown wrote:

A few minutes go I noticed a notification dot on the Google phone app
icon on my home screen. Recents didn't show a call, but there was a
new voicemail.

Had you been on a call, or had DnD enabled?

Apparently some marketers are so desperate they use "ringless voice
mail" systems

<https://www.ringover.co.uk/blog/how-to-leave-a-voicemail-without-calling#title-2>

For that URL, the page changes to an overlay with "Demo Trial", and then
times out by obliterating the page by replacing with another one trying
to get the visitor to register. No thanks.

However, that article did spur me to searching on "ringless voicemail"
to get more info, and noted some results in a reply (Message-ID: <dk2cvywc01y8.dlg@v.nguard.lh>) to my prior reply.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

Google Pixel 8a, Android 15

A few minutes go I noticed a notification dot on the Google phone app
icon on my home screen. Recents didn't show a call, but there was a
new voicemail. It was definitely a spam message: some guy who sounded
like poor-quality speech generation said he was Attorney something
"with the consumer protection agency" (which is not the name of a
Federal or California state bureau) and wanted me to call him at some
800 number. Needless to say, I didn't.

Is it possible to send a voicemail to an Android phone without
actually calling the phone?

Do you have spam filtering enabled with whomever is your cellular
provider? If so, they may send spam straight to voicemail rather than
issue a call.

One of the hits when I searched on "ringless voicemail":

https://www.itelecenter.com/blog/how-to-leave-a-voicemail-without-calling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringless_voicemail

I also saw mention that some countries allow modifying a phone number to directly connect to voicemail, like Germany allows enter a 2-digit
number between the area code and phone number. Some carriers actually
offer ringless voicemail as a "feature" (that you can't turn off).

Might want to check if your carrier has an anti-spam feature not just on
calls, but also on voicemails (and texts). You could try blocking those
calls, but Slydial, and other pro-spam services, probably have a large
pool of phone numbers from which to originate their turds. Plus, such unscrupulous senders are not above spoofing, either. Also, call
blocking might only work on calls, not on direct-to-voicemail messages.

Some courts have sided against the spammers saying "call" also includes
any method to communicate with a recipient. The FCC has their own
ruling which would assist plantiffs in class action lawsuits against the spammers; see:

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-finds-ringless-voicemails-are-subject-robocalling-rules
(click on one of the doc file links to read the ruling)

https://www.foxla.com/news/fcc-spam-callers-ringless-voicemails-phones

With a filing of AATM trying to get exempted from TCPA, they actually
drew attention to the scheme, and the FCC ruled against them, a
situation "it doesn't hurt to ask" actually did hurt.

https://www.olshanlaw.com/Advertising-Law-Blog/court-rules-direct-drop-or-ringless-voicemails

While the FCC's ruling assists court rulings in the USA, that won't help
in other countries, and apparently has yet to get the phone carriers to
desist in providing the "feature".

Ringless voicemail is not a new problem. The FCC ruling was dated back
in 1991. The pro-spam providers of ringless voicemail are several, and
they make money to subscribe to their service. Slydial is HQ'ed in
Boston, MA, so you'd think they would be subject to the FCC ruling, but
they're still in business.

Under the FCC's ruling, ringless voicemail are robocalls, and are still "calls". You can register with the FCC for Do Not Block registry, but
that isn't very effective. They have to accrue thousands of complaints
against the same source before they will even consider any action, and
spammers frequently move.

Contact your carrier to see if they offer tools or options to block
ringless voicemails, or to disable their own feature that is getting
abused. Blocking numbers won't work.

https://robotalker.com/blogs/how-to-block-ringless-voicemail-calls-on-your-phone

Shows a list of options for some carriers. You need to be a subscriber
to those carriers. I use a MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operator, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operator), so the
carrier to which I get assigned through the MVNO does not see me as
their customer. If I call the carrier, they dump me back to asking my
MVNO for help, and MVNOs have little or no support, and little or no [anti-]features to combat ringless voicemail since such level of support
would cut into their cost savings they pass onto their customers.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 07:16:46 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

Stan Brown wrote:

A few minutes go I noticed a notification dot on the Google phone app
icon on my home screen. Recents didn't show a call, but there was a
new voicemail.

Had you been on a call, or had DnD enabled?

No to both.

Apparently some marketers are so desperate they use "ringless voice
mail" systems

<https://www.ringover.co.uk/blog/how-to-leave-a-voicemail-without-calling#title-2>

That was my question, whether such a thing existed. Another gift to
spammers.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 08:12:32 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

Is it possible to send a voicemail to an Android phone without
actually calling the phone?

I don't know where my mind is lately. I really should have googled
that before posting a query.

Do you have spam filtering enabled with whomever is your cellular
provider? If so, they may send spam straight to voicemail rather than issue a call.

Like you, I have an MVNO for a carrier. Mine is called Visible, and
it's a wholly-owned subsidiary of Verizon. Support is pretty basic,
to put it mildly. They're good with SIMs and transferring phone
numbers, but I don't know that I could get a straight answer to
questions about spam protection or ringless voicemails.

I do have Google Phone's spam protection enabled, and call screen for
unknown numbers, but in the past any rejected call has shown in my
call history. I suppose I should say I've seen plenty of rejected
calls in call history, so I assume that's what always happens when
Google Phone rejects a call.

One of the hits when I searched on "ringless voicemail":

https://www.itelecenter.com/blog/how-to-leave-a-voicemail-without-calling

Thank you for this. I don't know if the author intended it, but it
reads like a how-to for spammers. In any case, it answers Yes to my
question of whether a voicemail can be created without ringing the
phone.

Some courts have sided against the spammers saying "call" also includes
any method to communicate with a recipient. The FCC has their own
ruling which would assist plantiffs in class action lawsuits against the spammers; see:

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-finds-ringless-voicemails-are-subject-robocalling-rules
(click on one of the doc file links to read the ruling)

The robocalling rule was a good idea, like the Do-Not-Call List.
Sadly, when it comes to actual enforcement I know that DNC is
toothless, and I'll bet that the robocalling rule is too. Of course,
under the present administration, all forms of consumer protection
seem to be out of fashion.

Ringless voicemail is not a new problem. The FCC ruling was dated back
in 1991. The pro-spam providers of ringless voicemail are several, and
they make money to subscribe to their service. Slydial is HQ'ed in
Boston, MA, so you'd think they would be subject to the FCC ruling, but they're still in business.

Under the FCC's ruling, ringless voicemail are robocalls, and are still "calls". You can register with the FCC for Do Not Block registry, but
that isn't very effective.

Indeed! It's fundamentally flawed, in my opinion, because the person
receiving the unwanted call virtually always gets a spoofed number.
The victims have no way to know the actual number from which the call
is made, and the FCC has no way to aggregate calls from a number that
uses multiple spoofed numbers, as most spammers do.

I'm on the Do-Not-Call list, and have been since before the turn of
the century, but I don't have any illusions about its effectiveness.

Contact your carrier to see if they offer tools or options to block
ringless voicemails, or to disable their own feature that is getting
abused. Blocking numbers won't work.

https://robotalker.com/blogs/how-to-block-ringless-voicemail-calls-on-your-phone

Shows a list of options for some carriers. You need to be a subscriber
to those carriers. I use a MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operator, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operator), so the carrier to which I get assigned through the MVNO does not see me as
their customer. If I call the carrier, they dump me back to asking my
MVNO for help, and MVNOs have little or no support, and little or no [anti-]features to combat ringless voicemail since such level of support would cut into their cost savings they pass onto their customers.

I'm in the same position. I've never even tried to get customer
service from Verizon, even though my MVNO uses their network
exclusively, but if I did I'm sure I would just get bounced back to
Visible.

For a laugh, I went to Visible's site and searched Help for "ringless voicemail". The AI told me there was no text available or that
search, which surprised me not even a little. :-) There doesn't seem
to be any way to contact a human as a follow-up, but since this has
happened once in a year and a half I don't feel a need to pursue it.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-03-27, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 07:16:46 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

Stan Brown wrote:

A few minutes go I noticed a notification dot on the Google phone app
icon on my home screen. Recents didn't show a call, but there was a
new voicemail.

Had you been on a call, or had DnD enabled?

No to both.

Apparently some marketers are so desperate they use "ringless voice
mail" systems

<https://www.ringover.co.uk/blog/how-to-leave-a-voicemail-without-calling#title-2>

That was my question, whether such a thing existed. Another gift to
spammers.

I have voice mail disabled. Dunno how they'd be able to do it.
If someone needs an to give me a message they can SMS me.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:

I have voice mail disabled. Dunno how they'd be able to do it.
If someone needs an to give me a message they can SMS me.

I use Google Voice which has a voicemail feature (with spam filtering). However, my MVNO (Tracfone) forced me to enable AT&T's voicemail to use
the cellular service. I couldn't get past the setup without enabling voicemail. Later I called Tracfone to disable voicemail. There was no
option in the Tracfone account to disable voicemail, so I had to call
them. They said it was a function of AT&T's service, and that I had to
call AT&T. I don't have an AT&T account, because I am a Tracfone
customer, not an AT&T customers. When I contacted AT&T, they said I was
not their customer, so they would not provide support (to have them
manually edit my "account" which I didn't have there). So, I was stuck
with having voicemail enabled.

One reason I want to get at service-side voicemail settings was to up
the ring count when their service picking up an unanswered call. Google
Voice picks up at 6 rings, and so does the carrier service. About once
a month the carrrier grabs the call instead of Google Voice. Nope, no
way for me to change the carrier's pickup count (to 7, or more). Since
I wanted only Google Voice to switch to voicemail, I wanted to disable
the carrier's voicemail. Nope, couldn't do that, either. The only way
to resolve the situation is to get a new SIM and new phone number with
Tracfone to test if they changed their setup to eliminate having to
enable voicemail (which was probably an AT&T mandate for new service).

I rarely get voicemails. Like you say, they could send a text.
However, I tend to distrust texts since most do not identify the caller.
I see "24530" as the caller. What the fuck is that? Personal callers
usually show their phone number, so there's a match up to my Contacts
list, but stupidly all those 2FA codes sent by a web site do NOT
identify the web site sent them, and 2FA mining is a problem. Maybe I
just did something, like renew a prescription at my pharmacy's web site,
so a text from some garbage numbered sender that says it is from my
pharmacy that arrives within 2 minutes of my action at their web site
provides context for the text. However, context is not the same as identification.

Voicemail is too much a hassle to use. Too often callers just hangup
when they hear the beep. They're okay with conversation when someone
picks up their call, but they suffer cognitive powers to construct
sentences when they have to figure out what to say to leave a message.
Ringless voicemail remains a problem despite rules against such robocall communications. Off-shore callers, even those using phony local area
code numbers with providers of such services (e.g., On..., forget the
full name), don't abide by the Do-Not-Call and TCPA rules.

Almost no spam gets through Google Voice, and I've not seen any false
positives (callers are given a random 5-digit code, like a CAPTCHA, to
get past the screening). If only I could kill my carrier's voicemail so
only Google Voice was doing voicemail. Or disable it everywhere, and go
back to the old answering machine on my end.

Well, there is a workaround. I could reduce the pickup ring count on my answering machine (well, integral to the cordless phone base), say, to
answer on 5 rings which would be shorter than either Google Voice's or
the carrier's 6-ring pickup count, but I'd have 6 seconds less time to
reach the phone, look at its display, to decide to pickup the call, or
not. I can't disable the voicemail service at the carrier (with whom
I'm not a customer, but instead with an MVNO) or at Google Voice, but I
could get the answering machine to pickup sooner than those two.

I haven't noticed getting any ringless voicemails through Google Voice,
so any expenditure on my side would be like putting on a condom when not
having sex: not much point to do the effort.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
[...]

However, I tend to distrust texts since most do not identify the caller.
I see "24530" as the caller. What the fuck is that? Personal callers usually show their phone number, so there's a match up to my Contacts
list, but stupidly all those 2FA codes sent by a web site do NOT
identify the web site sent them, and 2FA mining is a problem. Maybe I
just did something, like renew a prescription at my pharmacy's web site,
so a text from some garbage numbered sender that says it is from my
pharmacy that arrives within 2 minutes of my action at their web site provides context for the text. However, context is not the same as identification.

Hmm? Strange! Not that I get that many SMS messages for 2SV or
information, but the ones I get, always have a 'name' - for example an
airline - or a telephone number.

Perhaps this no-name problem is US-specific? (I am in The
Netherlands.)

But indeed, also for our pharmacy, it's a number, but it's always the
same number, so no problem. If I could be bothered, I could put the
number in my Contacts list. Problem solved.

[...]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-03-28, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
[...]

However, I tend to distrust texts since most do not identify the caller.
I see "24530" as the caller. What the fuck is that? Personal callers
usually show their phone number, so there's a match up to my Contacts
list, but stupidly all those 2FA codes sent by a web site do NOT
identify the web site sent them, and 2FA mining is a problem. Maybe I
just did something, like renew a prescription at my pharmacy's web site,
so a text from some garbage numbered sender that says it is from my
pharmacy that arrives within 2 minutes of my action at their web site
provides context for the text. However, context is not the same as
identification.

Hmm? Strange! Not that I get that many SMS messages for 2SV or
information, but the ones I get, always have a 'name' - for example an airline - or a telephone number.

Perhaps this no-name problem is US-specific? (I am in The
Netherlands.)

My experience is same as yours - I always get a number - or if contacts
the name). I'm in UK.

But indeed, also for our pharmacy, it's a number, but it's always the
same number, so no problem. If I could be bothered, I could put the
number in my Contacts list. Problem solved.

[...]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:

On 2025-03-28, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
[...]

However, I tend to distrust texts since most do not identify the caller. >> I see "24530" as the caller. What the fuck is that? Personal callers
usually show their phone number, so there's a match up to my Contacts
list, but stupidly all those 2FA codes sent by a web site do NOT
identify the web site sent them, and 2FA mining is a problem. Maybe I
just did something, like renew a prescription at my pharmacy's web site, >> so a text from some garbage numbered sender that says it is from my
pharmacy that arrives within 2 minutes of my action at their web site
provides context for the text. However, context is not the same as
identification.

Hmm? Strange! Not that I get that many SMS messages for 2SV or information, but the ones I get, always have a 'name' - for example an airline - or a telephone number.

Perhaps this no-name problem is US-specific? (I am in The
Netherlands.)

My experience is same as yours - I always get a number - or if contacts
the name). I'm in UK.

But, as implied, I also get names for some/most organizations which
are not in my Contacts on the phone. For example an airline (KLM) and
many, many others.

Of course many of those may be in *a* contact list (mainly in the
(Mozilla Thunderbird) address book on my laptop), but in not the one on
my phone. Anyway, the other contact list is a email contact list,
without phone numbers.

So these senders have ways to send their name instead of their number.

But indeed, also for our pharmacy, it's a number, but it's always the same number, so no problem. If I could be bothered, I could put the
number in my Contacts list. Problem solved.

[...]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/28/25 3:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
[...]

However, I tend to distrust texts since most do not identify the caller.
I see "24530" as the caller. What the fuck is that? Personal callers
usually show their phone number, so there's a match up to my Contacts
list, but stupidly all those 2FA codes sent by a web site do NOT
identify the web site sent them, and 2FA mining is a problem. Maybe I
just did something, like renew a prescription at my pharmacy's web site,
so a text from some garbage numbered sender that says it is from my
pharmacy that arrives within 2 minutes of my action at their web site
provides context for the text. However, context is not the same as
identification.

Hmm? Strange! Not that I get that many SMS messages for 2SV or
information, but the ones I get, always have a 'name' - for example an >airline - or a telephone number.

Mine usually ID (falsly or otherwise) themselves by number in the top line
of the text be they spam, scam, or otherwise.

Perhaps this no-name problem is US-specific? (I am in The
Netherlands.)

Like Vanguard I get numbers unless they're in my contact list in which case
their name is shown instead of the number. I use Google Messages in the US.

But indeed, also for our pharmacy, it's a number, but it's always the
same number, so no problem. If I could be bothered, I could put the
number in my Contacts list. Problem solved.

Yup. With my large family (40+ in contacts) plus docs, mechanics, yard
folks, pharmacy, etc etc etc I find contacts very handy. Besides texts it
saves lookup and dialing time. Love modern technology. And it sometimes
saves my butt. When I get a Happy Birthday Pops text from one of the greats
who of course never sign it, I can thank them by name...

[...]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
[...]

However, I tend to distrust texts since most do not identify the caller.
I see "24530" as the caller. What the fuck is that? Personal callers
usually show their phone number, so there's a match up to my Contacts
list, but stupidly all those 2FA codes sent by a web site do NOT
identify the web site sent them, and 2FA mining is a problem. Maybe I
just did something, like renew a prescription at my pharmacy's web site,
so a text from some garbage numbered sender that says it is from my
pharmacy that arrives within 2 minutes of my action at their web site
provides context for the text. However, context is not the same as
identification.

Hmm? Strange! Not that I get that many SMS messages for 2SV or
information, but the ones I get, always have a 'name' - for example an airline - or a telephone number.

Perhaps this no-name problem is US-specific? (I am in The
Netherlands.)

But indeed, also for our pharmacy, it's a number, but it's always the
same number, so no problem. If I could be bothered, I could put the
number in my Contacts list. Problem solved.

[...]

I have not checked how many phone numbers I can record per contact. For example, I pay yearly for grocery delivery from a couple stores (cheaper
than me paying for gas to go to the store). The stores send texts, but
their numbers keep changing. Maybe they rotate through a small set of
phone numbers that I could add to their contacts. At least, they do
show phone numbers on their texts, but forget about looking them up.
Plus, they come from area codes 900+ miles away (probably some handling
center for their online orders).

Unfortunately I'm a neat freak, so I've cleared out my history of texts,
and have only the one sent yesterday to check on how that text was
identified. However, I have received 2FA codes sent from 5-digit
numbers which obviously don't identify the sender. Only the context of
when the text was received, and some text within give me a clue as to
the sender, but the sender can put whatever they want in the body of the
text (like e-mail senders can put anything they want in the From header,
but server-side headers help identify the sender).

As I recall, the 2FA codes sent by my bank are "identified" with a
sender ID, not a phone number. I just tried to login, but got
interrupted with their 2FA security theater. Luckily I do not have to
go searching for my smartphone to get the 2FA code. I configured Google
Voice to send texts as e-mails, so I get the e-mail with a copy of the
SMS text using my e-mail client on the same desktop where I am trying to
login using a web browser. But that won't do a lookup on Sender ID to
clearly identify the sender of the text. While I can enter phone
numbers in a contact record, I cannot enter Sender IDs to matching them
up with received texts.

As for those senders identifying themselves with a numeric string
(Sender ID) that is not a phone numbers, companies and spammers have a
slew of such sender IDs which means the sender is not identified. While
Sender IDs can be registered, there is not a requirement to do so.

https://www.comreg.ie/industry/electronic-communications/nuisance-communications/sms-sender-id-registry/

In the USA, Sender IDs must be numeric strings, but elsewhere they can
contain alphabetic characters.

https://help.twilio.com/articles/223133767-International-support-for-Alphanumeric-Sender-ID

That's in Ireland. Apparently there will be a feature to block
unregistered Sender IDs. However, very few Sender IDs are registered.
In fact, some providers let their users generate "personal" Sender IDs;
i.e., not registered, so the sender is still not identified. As yet, I
don't think there is a central Sender ID registry, but that would
probably scare off users that want to remain anonymous or untraced (but
I don't want calls or texts from those users). There are numerous
carrier registries that other carriers require to get texts receive at
those destinations, but this is not a central registry for lookup. If
there were such a public accessible registry, Sender ID would be trivial
for apps to do a lookup to identify the sender. Alas, as with domain registrations that get redacted to hide the registrants, the GDPR would probably fuck up the use of a central Sender ID registry by requiring
the sender have an option to remain anonymous (i.e., the registry could
have its records similarly redacted) to neuter the whole identification procedure. Oh yes, let's protect the sender to fuck over the recipient.
Screw the GDPR. I wish there were a similar feature for web browsers:
if the domain registrant is hidden in a domain registration (i.e., shows
the domain registrar instead of the domain registrant) then I don't want
to visit a site where the registrant is hiding. They provide a publicly accessible web site, so they should also be publicly identified. If
they don't want to identify themself, go hide in the Dark Web where I
never visit.

If there were a Sender ID registry publicly accessible for registered
IDs, and with a feature at the provider (an account option) or in the
client app to do Sender ID lookups, I could block anonymous callers ("unknown"). As yet, there is no option to block unknown (unregistered)
Sender IDs. There is no lookup. Just because a Sender ID looks like a
phone number doesn't mean it is a phone number. How many more decades
do we have to suffer SMS spoofing, because the sender is given higher
priority than the recipient?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:

On 2025-03-28, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
[...]

However, I tend to distrust texts since most do not identify the caller. >>>> I see "24530" as the caller. What the fuck is that? Personal callers >>>> usually show their phone number, so there's a match up to my Contacts
list, but stupidly all those 2FA codes sent by a web site do NOT
identify the web site sent them, and 2FA mining is a problem. Maybe I >>>> just did something, like renew a prescription at my pharmacy's web site, >>>> so a text from some garbage numbered sender that says it is from my
pharmacy that arrives within 2 minutes of my action at their web site
provides context for the text. However, context is not the same as
identification.

Hmm? Strange! Not that I get that many SMS messages for 2SV or
information, but the ones I get, always have a 'name' - for example an
airline - or a telephone number.

Perhaps this no-name problem is US-specific? (I am in The
Netherlands.)

My experience is same as yours - I always get a number - or if contacts
the name). I'm in UK.

But, as implied, I also get names for some/most organizations which
are not in my Contacts on the phone. For example an airline (KLM) and
many, many others.

Of course many of those may be in *a* contact list (mainly in the
(Mozilla Thunderbird) address book on my laptop), but in not the one on
my phone. Anyway, the other contact list is a email contact list,
without phone numbers.

So these senders have ways to send their name instead of their number.

But indeed, also for our pharmacy, it's a number, but it's always the
same number, so no problem. If I could be bothered, I could put the
number in my Contacts list. Problem solved.

[...]

My Contacts records let me add phone numbers, but not Sender IDs. A
Sender ID may be a phone number (or just look like a phone number, but
really is not a phone number), but it really is just a numeric string
(some countries allow alphabetic characters in Sender IDs).

When I look in my Contacts records, there is no field for recording a
contact's Sender ID, only for phone numbers. Besides having non-legit alphabetic characters (in the USA, and some other countries) in the
Sender ID, the Sender ID can be spoofed. Sender IDs are rarely
registered, but then you don't have access to do a lookup in some non-centralized registry.

What you say is a phone number displayed for an SMS text is actually the
Sender ID. Sometimes the Sender ID looks like a phone number whether it
is or is not a phone number. Sometimes it is just a 1- to 15-character
numeric string (or 1- to 11-character alphanumeric string in some
countries).

https://thesmsworks.co.uk/blog/sms-sender-id/

The Sender ID in texts is as [un]trustworthy as is the From header in
e-mails. The sender gets to specify their Sender ID just like they get
to specify their From header. Spammers and scammers love it is so easy
to spoof those headers.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/28/25 9:33 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:

On 2025-03-28, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
[...]

However, I tend to distrust texts since most do not identify the caller. >> >> I see "24530" as the caller. What the fuck is that? Personal callers
usually show their phone number, so there's a match up to my Contacts
list, but stupidly all those 2FA codes sent by a web site do NOT
identify the web site sent them, and 2FA mining is a problem. Maybe I
just did something, like renew a prescription at my pharmacy's web site, >> >> so a text from some garbage numbered sender that says it is from my
pharmacy that arrives within 2 minutes of my action at their web site
provides context for the text. However, context is not the same as
identification.

Hmm? Strange! Not that I get that many SMS messages for 2SV or
information, but the ones I get, always have a 'name' - for example an
airline - or a telephone number.

Perhaps this no-name problem is US-specific? (I am in The
Netherlands.)

My experience is same as yours - I always get a number - or if contacts
the name). I'm in UK.

But, as implied, I also get names for some/most organizations which
are not in my Contacts on the phone. For example an airline (KLM) and
many, many others.

Of course many of those may be in *a* contact list (mainly in the
(Mozilla Thunderbird) address book on my laptop), but in not the one on
my phone. Anyway, the other contact list is a email contact list,
without phone numbers.

The contact list on my phone is the same SYNCED contact list that's on my
laptop (Chromebook), my Chrome/Android/Fire tablet toys, and can be
modified on any one of them. And of course that includes emails. Stuff is
so much easier and less complicated since I became
Windowless/Thunderbirdless... ;-)

So these senders have ways to send their name instead of their number.

But indeed, also for our pharmacy, it's a number, but it's always the
same number, so no problem. If I could be bothered, I could put the
number in my Contacts list. Problem solved.

[...]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

On 3/28/25 9:33 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:

On 2025-03-28, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

[...]

Hmm? Strange! Not that I get that many SMS messages for 2SV or
information, but the ones I get, always have a 'name' - for example an >> > airline - or a telephone number.

Perhaps this no-name problem is US-specific? (I am in The
Netherlands.)

My experience is same as yours - I always get a number - or if contacts
the name). I'm in UK.

But, as implied, I also get names for some/most organizations which
are not in my Contacts on the phone. For example an airline (KLM) and
many, many others.

Of course many of those may be in *a* contact list (mainly in the
(Mozilla Thunderbird) address book on my laptop), but in not the one on
my phone. Anyway, the other contact list is a email contact list,
without phone numbers.

The contact list on my phone is the same SYNCED contact list that's on my
laptop (Chromebook), my Chrome/Android/Fire tablet toys, and can be
modified on any one of them. And of course that includes emails. Stuff is
so much easier and less complicated since I became
Windowless/Thunderbirdless... ;-)

Yes, I'm aware that many people sync their contact lists, that's why I specifically mentioned that I don't, because that's relevant in this
context (of SMS messages having sender names instead of numbers).

My phone contacts are probably synced by my Google Account, but as I
don't use a Google email program on my laptop, there's no way my phone
can tie the sender of an SMS message to an e-mail-only contact on my
laptop. Even Google can't do the impossible! :-)

So these senders have ways to send their name instead of their number.

But indeed, also for our pharmacy, it's a number, but it's always the >> > same number, so no problem. If I could be bothered, I could put the
number in my Contacts list. Problem solved.

[...]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-03-28 17:33, Frank Slootweg wrote:

Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:

On 2025-03-28, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
[...]

However, I tend to distrust texts since most do not identify the caller. >>>> I see "24530" as the caller. What the fuck is that? Personal callers >>>> usually show their phone number, so there's a match up to my Contacts
list, but stupidly all those 2FA codes sent by a web site do NOT
identify the web site sent them, and 2FA mining is a problem. Maybe I >>>> just did something, like renew a prescription at my pharmacy's web site, >>>> so a text from some garbage numbered sender that says it is from my
pharmacy that arrives within 2 minutes of my action at their web site
provides context for the text. However, context is not the same as
identification.

Hmm? Strange! Not that I get that many SMS messages for 2SV or
information, but the ones I get, always have a 'name' - for example an
airline - or a telephone number.

Perhaps this no-name problem is US-specific? (I am in The
Netherlands.)

My experience is same as yours - I always get a number - or if contacts
the name). I'm in UK.

But, as implied, I also get names for some/most organizations which
are not in my Contacts on the phone. For example an airline (KLM) and
many, many others.

Of course many of those may be in *a* contact list (mainly in the
(Mozilla Thunderbird) address book on my laptop), but in not the one on
my phone. Anyway, the other contact list is a email contact list,
without phone numbers.

So these senders have ways to send their name instead of their number.

AFAIK, I have only seen this in SMS messages. Apparently, they had to
contract the name and a short number with the provider. But it can be faked.



--
Cheers, Carlos.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-03-28 11:53, Frank Slootweg wrote:

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
[...]

However, I tend to distrust texts since most do not identify the caller.
I see "24530" as the caller. What the fuck is that? Personal callers
usually show their phone number, so there's a match up to my Contacts
list, but stupidly all those 2FA codes sent by a web site do NOT
identify the web site sent them, and 2FA mining is a problem. Maybe I
just did something, like renew a prescription at my pharmacy's web site,
so a text from some garbage numbered sender that says it is from my
pharmacy that arrives within 2 minutes of my action at their web site
provides context for the text. However, context is not the same as
identification.

Hmm? Strange! Not that I get that many SMS messages for 2SV or information, but the ones I get, always have a 'name' - for example an airline - or a telephone number.

Perhaps this no-name problem is US-specific? (I am in The
Netherlands.)

Yes. In USA and Canada, the phone line gets a name for the caller, sent
somehow dynamically from the calling phone. On land lines at least.
There is a service to define what name you want to send when making a
phone call.

In Europe, you only get a name if you write it yourself in your local
contact list.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/28/25 1:04 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

On 3/28/25 9:33 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:

On 2025-03-28, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

[...]

Hmm? Strange! Not that I get that many SMS messages for 2SV or
information, but the ones I get, always have a 'name' - for example an >> >> > airline - or a telephone number.

Perhaps this no-name problem is US-specific? (I am in The
Netherlands.)

My experience is same as yours - I always get a number - or if contacts >> >> the name). I'm in UK.

But, as implied, I also get names for some/most organizations which
are not in my Contacts on the phone. For example an airline (KLM) and
many, many others.

Of course many of those may be in *a* contact list (mainly in the
(Mozilla Thunderbird) address book on my laptop), but in not the one on
my phone. Anyway, the other contact list is a email contact list,
without phone numbers.

The contact list on my phone is the same SYNCED contact list that's on my
laptop (Chromebook), my Chrome/Android/Fire tablet toys, and can be
modified on any one of them. And of course that includes emails. Stuff is >> so much easier and less complicated since I became
Windowless/Thunderbirdless... ;-)

Yes, I'm aware that many people sync their contact lists, that's why I >specifically mentioned that I don't, because that's relevant in this
context (of SMS messages having sender names instead of numbers).

My phone contacts are probably synced by my Google Account, but as I
don't use a Google email program on my laptop,

Use a Chrome browser on your laptop? Signed in? Check out:
contacts.google.com... 8-O

there's no way my phone
can tie the sender of an SMS message to an e-mail-only contact on my
laptop. Even Google can't do the impossible! :-)

So these senders have ways to send their name instead of their number.

But indeed, also for our pharmacy, it's a number, but it's always the >> >> > same number, so no problem. If I could be bothered, I could put the
number in my Contacts list. Problem solved.

[...]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)