Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
8MB sms pic
5 views
Skip to first unread message
K120
Nov 8, 2018, 10:52:11 AM11/8/18
to
When I send SMS pictures they default to 8MB which people complain about.
The default SMS app doesn't have a setting for autoshrink.
How do you do that?
The default SMS app doesn't have a setting for autoshrink.
How do you do that?
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Nov 8, 2018, 5:33:03 PM11/8/18
to
In message <q0o8uddb1f7vltbf0...@4ax.com>, KenW
<ken...@invalid.net> writes:
>On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 10:52:11 -0500, K120 <hunt...@interweb.net>
>wrote:
That's not what he's asking; he doesn't mention any problem sending. The
people he sends to are the ones objecting - could be _their_ carrier has
a maximum, or could be they just don't like such big images.
He's asking how to set SMS to autoshrink. (I've not used SMS imaging - I
didn't know it existed! - but for most purposes related to 'phones, I
can't see any reason to use 8 MB images. There _might_ be a setting in
the camera to use less than the most it can.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"Scheisse," said Pooh, trying out his German.
<ken...@invalid.net> writes:
>On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 10:52:11 -0500, K120 <hunt...@interweb.net>
>wrote:
>
>>When I send SMS pictures they default to 8MB which people complain about.
>>The default SMS app doesn't have a setting for autoshrink.
>>How do you do that?
>
>My bet would be your carrier has a maximum.
>>When I send SMS pictures they default to 8MB which people complain about.
>>The default SMS app doesn't have a setting for autoshrink.
>>How do you do that?
>
That's not what he's asking; he doesn't mention any problem sending. The
people he sends to are the ones objecting - could be _their_ carrier has
a maximum, or could be they just don't like such big images.
He's asking how to set SMS to autoshrink. (I've not used SMS imaging - I
didn't know it existed! - but for most purposes related to 'phones, I
can't see any reason to use 8 MB images. There _might_ be a setting in
the camera to use less than the most it can.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"Scheisse," said Pooh, trying out his German.
musika
Nov 9, 2018, 6:48:26 AM11/9/18
to
K120
Nov 9, 2018, 5:07:58 PM11/9/18
to
On Thu, 8 Nov 2018 22:31:55 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> said:
> That's not what he's asking; he doesn't mention any problem sending. The
> people he sends to are the ones objecting - could be _their_ carrier has
> a maximum, or could be they just don't like such big images.
>
> He's asking how to set SMS to autoshrink. (I've not used SMS imaging - I
> didn't know it existed! - but for most purposes related to 'phones, I
> can't see any reason to use 8 MB images. There _might_ be a setting in
> the camera to use less than the most it can.)
You are right that I have no problem sending any size picture.
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> said:
> That's not what he's asking; he doesn't mention any problem sending. The
> people he sends to are the ones objecting - could be _their_ carrier has
> a maximum, or could be they just don't like such big images.
>
> He's asking how to set SMS to autoshrink. (I've not used SMS imaging - I
> didn't know it existed! - but for most purposes related to 'phones, I
> can't see any reason to use 8 MB images. There _might_ be a setting in
> the camera to use less than the most it can.)
People have no problem receiving any size picture from me.
It's just that SMS/MMS app pictures don't need to be that big.
The camera can manually change the default size setting.
But you don't want all pictures from the camera to be that size.
You want only the pictures sent through SMS/MMS to be small.
An SMS/MMS app should have a setting to autoshrink sent pictures.
But my default SMS/MMS app doesn't have a setting for that.
Does yours?
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Nov 9, 2018, 9:37:59 PM11/9/18
to
In message <ps50fq$1o5i$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, K120 <hunt...@interweb.net>
writes:
[]
large when you want it, rather than small when you want it? IMO, most
pictures these days _are_ too large for their intended use.
>But my default SMS/MMS app doesn't have a setting for that.
>
>Does yours?
I don't have one; I'd never heard of SMS images until this thread. (I
thought SMs were limited to something like 140 bytes, which hardly any
images will fit within!)
A. Thank you so much for asking your question.
Are you still having this problem? I'll be delighted to help you. Please
restate the problem twice and include your Windows version along with
all error logs.
- Mayayana in alt.windows7.general, 2018-11-1
writes:
[]
>You are right that I have no problem sending any size picture.
>People have no problem receiving any size picture from me.
>It's just that SMS/MMS app pictures don't need to be that big.
>
>The camera can manually change the default size setting.
>But you don't want all pictures from the camera to be that size.
>You want only the pictures sent through SMS/MMS to be small.
Could you set it to a small size by default, so that you have to select
>People have no problem receiving any size picture from me.
>It's just that SMS/MMS app pictures don't need to be that big.
>
>The camera can manually change the default size setting.
>But you don't want all pictures from the camera to be that size.
>You want only the pictures sent through SMS/MMS to be small.
large when you want it, rather than small when you want it? IMO, most
pictures these days _are_ too large for their intended use.
>
>An SMS/MMS app should have a setting to autoshrink sent pictures.
I agree.
>An SMS/MMS app should have a setting to autoshrink sent pictures.
>But my default SMS/MMS app doesn't have a setting for that.
>
>Does yours?
thought SMs were limited to something like 140 bytes, which hardly any
images will fit within!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Q. How much is 2 + 2?
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
A. Thank you so much for asking your question.
Are you still having this problem? I'll be delighted to help you. Please
restate the problem twice and include your Windows version along with
all error logs.
- Mayayana in alt.windows7.general, 2018-11-1
Chris
Nov 11, 2018, 6:34:41 AM11/11/18
to
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <ps50fq$1o5i$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, K120 <hunt...@interweb.net>
> writes:
> []
>> You are right that I have no problem sending any size picture.
>> People have no problem receiving any size picture from me.
>> It's just that SMS/MMS app pictures don't need to be that big.
>>
>> The camera can manually change the default size setting.
>> But you don't want all pictures from the camera to be that size.
>> You want only the pictures sent through SMS/MMS to be small.
>
> Could you set it to a small size by default, so that you have to select
> large when you want it, rather than small when you want it? IMO, most
> pictures these days _are_ too large for their intended use.
>>
>> An SMS/MMS app should have a setting to autoshrink sent pictures.
>
> I agree.
>
>> But my default SMS/MMS app doesn't have a setting for that.
>>
>> Does yours?
>
> I don't have one; I'd never heard of SMS images until this thread. (I
> thought SMs were limited to something like 140 bytes, which hardly any
> images will fit within!)
The OP is probably talking about MMS. Which functions a bit like SMS with
> In message <ps50fq$1o5i$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, K120 <hunt...@interweb.net>
> writes:
> []
>> You are right that I have no problem sending any size picture.
>> People have no problem receiving any size picture from me.
>> It's just that SMS/MMS app pictures don't need to be that big.
>>
>> The camera can manually change the default size setting.
>> But you don't want all pictures from the camera to be that size.
>> You want only the pictures sent through SMS/MMS to be small.
>
> Could you set it to a small size by default, so that you have to select
> large when you want it, rather than small when you want it? IMO, most
> pictures these days _are_ too large for their intended use.
>>
>> An SMS/MMS app should have a setting to autoshrink sent pictures.
>
> I agree.
>
>> But my default SMS/MMS app doesn't have a setting for that.
>>
>> Does yours?
>
> I don't have one; I'd never heard of SMS images until this thread. (I
> thought SMs were limited to something like 140 bytes, which hardly any
> images will fit within!)
images, but uses a different mechanism.
The only method I know that offers to resize images is when I email
something with iOS mail.
Andy Burns
Nov 11, 2018, 6:47:48 AM11/11/18
to
Chris wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> I'd never heard of SMS images until this thread. (I thought SMs
>> were limited to something like 140 bytes, which hardly any images
>> will fit within!)
>
> The OP is probably talking about MMS. Which functions a bit like SMS
> with images, but uses a different mechanism.
MMS are not especially popular in the UK, even if you have a contract
that includes thousands of (or unlimited) SMS messages/month, you are
charged up to 55p to send an MMS.
> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> I'd never heard of SMS images until this thread. (I thought SMs
>> were limited to something like 140 bytes, which hardly any images
>> will fit within!)
>
> The OP is probably talking about MMS. Which functions a bit like SMS
> with images, but uses a different mechanism.
that includes thousands of (or unlimited) SMS messages/month, you are
charged up to 55p to send an MMS.
Carlos E.R.
Nov 11, 2018, 7:12:06 AM11/11/18
to
such as WhatsApp. It sends at the default camera settings, which ends in
sending large photos and filling the memory of the phone with wasap
conversations.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Carlos E.R.
Nov 11, 2018, 7:12:06 AM11/11/18
to
them for free. Thus other messaging applications, such as Whatsapp, are
less popular.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Joerg Lorenz
Nov 11, 2018, 11:21:19 AM11/11/18
to
Am 11.11.18 um 12:47 schrieb Andy Burns:
MMS still works but de facto it is dead in all markets. WhatsApp and
other mennsgers are much more efficient in sending pics.
other mennsgers are much more efficient in sending pics.
Joerg Lorenz
Nov 11, 2018, 11:23:02 AM11/11/18
to
Am 11.11.18 um 13:08 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
They are not more or less popular than here in Europe. How do you come
to this conclusion or speculation?
to this conclusion or speculation?
Joerg Lorenz
Nov 11, 2018, 11:27:43 AM11/11/18
to
Am 11.11.18 um 13:11 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
Certainly they are much smaller than the original pics. And you can
easily set up messengers to delete older conversations. I never
understood the concept to keep conversations of messengers. Do you
record all your talk too?
For this purpose mail is much more suitable. And pics in messengers are
moved to the cloud if set up correctly and/or you buy a phone with
reasonable storage space.
easily set up messengers to delete older conversations. I never
understood the concept to keep conversations of messengers. Do you
record all your talk too?
For this purpose mail is much more suitable. And pics in messengers are
moved to the cloud if set up correctly and/or you buy a phone with
reasonable storage space.
K120
Nov 11, 2018, 12:37:53 PM11/11/18
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 17:23:02 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> said:
> They are not more or less popular than here in Europe. How do you come
> to this conclusion or speculation?
I don't understand the advantage of whatsapp to me.
> They are not more or less popular than here in Europe. How do you come
> to this conclusion or speculation?
What does whatsapp do that my unlimited free MMS/SMS doesn't do?
Chris
Nov 11, 2018, 2:19:48 PM11/11/18
to
send photos free/cheaply a messaging app is needed.
Group chats are also much easier to set up on WhatsApp. It's a nice feature
that you don't realise it's usefulness until you try it. I'm a recent
convert.
K120
Nov 11, 2018, 4:34:22 PM11/11/18
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 19:19:48 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> said:
> Group chats are also much easier to set up on WhatsApp. It's a nice feature
> that you don't realise it's usefulness until you try it. I'm a recent
> convert.
In SMS/MMS a 'group chat' is the same thing as a single person text.
> Group chats are also much easier to set up on WhatsApp. It's a nice feature
> that you don't realise it's usefulness until you try it. I'm a recent
> convert.
All you do is hit the plus sign to add people.
How much easier can a group SMS/MMS be in whatsapp than that?
K120
Nov 11, 2018, 4:44:46 PM11/11/18
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 17:21:18 +0100, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> said:
> MMS still works but de facto it is dead in all markets. WhatsApp and
> other mennsgers are much more efficient in sending pics.
I don't understand how you say that sms/mms is dead.
> MMS still works but de facto it is dead in all markets. WhatsApp and
> other mennsgers are much more efficient in sending pics.
Why don't I know anyone using whatsapp for sms/mms in the usa?
Carlos E.R.
Nov 11, 2018, 8:24:07 PM11/11/18
to
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Carlos E.R.
Nov 11, 2018, 8:32:07 PM11/11/18
to
The advantage to Europeans is that Whatsapp usage is free, while MMS to
us is about 50 cents each message. I have been charged 2 euros last time
I tried to send a single MMS with a photo, to a chap across the room,
just for testing the feature.
MMS is a service of the telephone provider (and they can charge for it
as they wish), whereas WhatsApp is just another app that uses internet.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Carlos E.R.
Nov 11, 2018, 8:36:07 PM11/11/18
to
many people using MMS and not knowing what wasap is.
It is not dead on _all_ markets, far from it. It is very alive.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Carlos E.R.
Nov 11, 2018, 8:40:07 PM11/11/18
to
On 11/11/2018 17.27, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 11.11.18 um 13:11 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 09/11/2018 23.07, K120 wrote:
>>> An SMS/MMS app should have a setting to autoshrink sent pictures.
>>> But my default SMS/MMS app doesn't have a setting for that.
>>
>> You are correct. A similar problem happens with other messaging systems,
>> such as WhatsApp. It sends at the default camera settings, which ends in
>> sending large photos and filling the memory of the phone with wasap
>> conversations.
>
> Certainly they are much smaller than the original pics. And you can
> easily set up messengers to delete older conversations. I never
> understood the concept to keep conversations of messengers. Do you
> record all your talk too?
Well, no, whatsapp does not reduce the size of _my_ photos, they are huge.
> Am 11.11.18 um 13:11 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 09/11/2018 23.07, K120 wrote:
>>> An SMS/MMS app should have a setting to autoshrink sent pictures.
>>> But my default SMS/MMS app doesn't have a setting for that.
>>
>> You are correct. A similar problem happens with other messaging systems,
>> such as WhatsApp. It sends at the default camera settings, which ends in
>> sending large photos and filling the memory of the phone with wasap
>> conversations.
>
> Certainly they are much smaller than the original pics. And you can
> easily set up messengers to delete older conversations. I never
> understood the concept to keep conversations of messengers. Do you
> record all your talk too?
And no, it can not delete _old_ conversations. It can delete _entire_
conversations, regardless of date. There is no concept of deleting
messages older than such date.
> For this purpose mail is much more suitable. And pics in messengers are
> moved to the cloud if set up correctly and/or you buy a phone with
> reasonable storage space.
on WiFi.
Yes, I agree email is better, but whatsap is easier and faster. There
are people without email and who do not know how to use it.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
nospam
Nov 11, 2018, 8:47:31 PM11/11/18
to
In article <8q1nbf-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
whatsapp, facebook messenger, viber, signal, imessage, snapchat and
others have almost entirely replaced sms and mms for several reasons,
including cost, privacy and features.
<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> > MMS still works but de facto it is dead in all markets. WhatsApp and
> > other mennsgers are much more efficient in sending pics.
>
> Sorry, this is not true. Go cross the pond to the west and you will see
> many people using MMS and not knowing what wasap is.
>
> It is not dead on _all_ markets, far from it. It is very alive.
it's very true.
> > MMS still works but de facto it is dead in all markets. WhatsApp and
> > other mennsgers are much more efficient in sending pics.
>
> Sorry, this is not true. Go cross the pond to the west and you will see
> many people using MMS and not knowing what wasap is.
>
> It is not dead on _all_ markets, far from it. It is very alive.
whatsapp, facebook messenger, viber, signal, imessage, snapchat and
others have almost entirely replaced sms and mms for several reasons,
including cost, privacy and features.
Joerg Lorenz
Nov 12, 2018, 12:19:30 AM11/12/18
to
Am 11.11.18 um 18:37 schrieb K120:
You have no idea what a modern messenger is and what it can do.
Joerg Lorenz
Nov 12, 2018, 12:21:45 AM11/12/18
to
Am 11.11.18 um 22:44 schrieb K120:
How do you come to this completely absurd conclusion?
In the USA Facebook messenger is more popular messenger.
In the USA Facebook messenger is more popular messenger.
Joerg Lorenz
Nov 12, 2018, 12:27:12 AM11/12/18
to
Am 12.11.18 um 02:32 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
I travel al lot in the USA and I can tell you this is not true. And
Facebook Messenger is there what WhatsApp is in Europe.
SMS/MMS plays no role anymore in personal communication. Even not the
most senior friends and relatives are using SMS or MMS anymore.
Facebook Messenger is there what WhatsApp is in Europe.
SMS/MMS plays no role anymore in personal communication. Even not the
most senior friends and relatives are using SMS or MMS anymore.
123456789
Nov 12, 2018, 1:40:58 AM11/12/18
to
On 11/11/2018 10:27 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> SMS/MMS plays no role anymore in personal communication.
My doctor's appointment reminders are via SMS. When one of my credit
> SMS/MMS plays no role anymore in personal communication.
cards is used I immediately get notified by SMS (of the amount and
location - handy for keeping an eye on fraud and the wife). My sensitive
accounts send me 2-step verification codes by SMS. Virtually all my
family non-verbal phone communication is by SMS (YMMV). Verizon warns me
when I am hooked up to a Mexican tower by SMS. So in my part of the
world your stated demise of SMS is greatly exaggerated...
Chris
Nov 12, 2018, 2:53:34 AM11/12/18
to
receive all messages. With SMS everyone needs to set up their own group.
Plus functionally group SMSs are multiple texts not a single message. If
you have large groups it can rapidly eat into your limits. There's no
guarantee everyone gets it at the same time, either.
WhatsApp also does voice/video calls.
Andy Burns
Nov 12, 2018, 3:11:04 AM11/12/18
to
Chris wrote:
> You set up the group once in WhatsApp and everyone in the group can send &
> receive all messages. With SMS everyone needs to set up their own group.
> Plus functionally group SMSs are multiple texts not a single message.
AFAIK, group MMS (as opposed to multiple SMS) stays as a single 'thread'
> You set up the group once in WhatsApp and everyone in the group can send &
> receive all messages. With SMS everyone needs to set up their own group.
> Plus functionally group SMSs are multiple texts not a single message.
with each reply being delivered to every number in the distribution list.
Chris
Nov 12, 2018, 3:17:32 AM11/12/18
to
Carlos E.R.
Nov 12, 2018, 4:56:07 AM11/12/18
to
had no whatsapp or facebook installed.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Piet
Nov 12, 2018, 6:21:59 AM11/12/18
to
Carlos E.R. wrote:
> The advantage to Europeans is that Whatsapp usage is free
Yes and no.
> The advantage to Europeans is that Whatsapp usage is free
If you use your own wifi or free public wifi, it's for free.
If you use mobile data, it depends on your subscription or
"internet bundle" when you use prepaid.
But you always pay with your privacy. whatsapp = faecesbook,
remember? Sure enough, if you use fb and thus don't give a
damn about privacy, don't worry about wa.
> while MMS to us is about 50 cents each message.
NL no longer supports mms.
> MMS is a service of the telephone provider (and they can charge
> for it as they wish), whereas WhatsApp is just another app that
> uses internet.
-p
Carlos E. R.
Nov 12, 2018, 8:02:45 AM11/12/18
to
On 12/11/2018 12.22, Piet wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> The advantage to Europeans is that Whatsapp usage is free
>
> Yes and no.
> If you use your own wifi or free public wifi, it's for free.
> If you use mobile data, it depends on your subscription or
> "internet bundle" when you use prepaid.
Sure.
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> The advantage to Europeans is that Whatsapp usage is free
>
> Yes and no.
> If you use your own wifi or free public wifi, it's for free.
> If you use mobile data, it depends on your subscription or
> "internet bundle" when you use prepaid.
As long as you have internet, it is free, as compared for paying for
each MMS sent as it happens to me and most people in Spain.
> But you always pay with your privacy. whatsapp = faecesbook,
> remember? Sure enough, if you use fb and thus don't give a
> damn about privacy, don't worry about wa.
about whatsap and privacy. The messages are encrypted, even they can not
read them.
Facebook app, yes, that one is intrusive. Not installed here.
>
>> while MMS to us is about 50 cents each message.
>
> If it's available at all. Since 1-7-2017 the major telco in
> NL no longer supports mms.
>
>> MMS is a service of the telephone provider (and they can charge
>> for it as they wish), whereas WhatsApp is just another app that
>> uses internet.
>
> So does Signal, but without the privacy issues.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Piet
Nov 12, 2018, 2:01:05 PM11/12/18
to
Carlos E. R. wrote:
And wa = fb isn't just a privacy issue, but a privacy disaster.
-p
> Piet wrote:
>> But you always pay with your privacy. whatsapp = faecesbook,
>> remember? Sure enough, if you use fb and thus don't give a
>> damn about privacy, don't worry about wa.
>
> Yes, they are the same company, but there is yet no issue known
> yet about whatsap and privacy. The messages are encrypted, even
> they can not read them.
I'm not talking about security, but about privacy.
>> But you always pay with your privacy. whatsapp = faecesbook,
>> remember? Sure enough, if you use fb and thus don't give a
>> damn about privacy, don't worry about wa.
>
> Yes, they are the same company, but there is yet no issue known
> yet about whatsap and privacy. The messages are encrypted, even
> they can not read them.
And wa = fb isn't just a privacy issue, but a privacy disaster.
-p
Frank Slootweg
Nov 12, 2018, 2:02:42 PM11/12/18
to
reasons such as the ones you mentioned - utter nonsense.
This is not the first - and probably not the last - time, he poses
his personal views, situation, etc. as worldwide universal truths.
Apparently he did not learn from his last nearly-absolute statement, so
this time he cranked it up a notch and made a totally-absolute one.
Andy Burns
Nov 12, 2018, 2:07:15 PM11/12/18
to
123456789 wrote:
> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> SMS/MMS plays no role anymore in personal communication.
>
> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> SMS/MMS plays no role anymore in personal communication.
>
> in my part of the
> world your stated demise of SMS is greatly exaggerated...
In the UK usage has peaked, but it's still 82 billion/year with a
> world your stated demise of SMS is greatly exaggerated...
population of 70 million.
Joerg Lorenz
Nov 12, 2018, 3:16:43 PM11/12/18
to
Am 12.11.18 um 12:22 schrieb Piet:
> So does Signal, but without the privacy issues.
Sure, because nobody uses Signal.
Joerg Lorenz
Nov 12, 2018, 3:28:02 PM11/12/18
to
Am 12.11.18 um 20:07 schrieb Andy Burns:
The providers are desperate because SMS hardly plays a role in personal
communication any more. For dentist reminders and credentials of
forgotten logins and that kind of info it has a lease of life.
MMS is dead anyway and never delivered what they expected from this
primitive service.
communication any more. For dentist reminders and credentials of
forgotten logins and that kind of info it has a lease of life.
MMS is dead anyway and never delivered what they expected from this
primitive service.
Frank Slootweg
Nov 12, 2018, 4:21:33 PM11/12/18
to
Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 12.11.18 um 20:07 schrieb Andy Burns:
> > 123456789 wrote:
> >
> >> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> >>
> >>> SMS/MMS plays no role anymore in personal communication.
> >>
> >> in my part of the
> >> world your stated demise of SMS is greatly exaggerated...
> >
> > In the UK usage has peaked, but it's still 82 billion/year with a
> > population of 70 million.
> >
> The providers are desperate because SMS hardly plays a role in personal
> communication any more. For dentist reminders and credentials of
> forgotten logins and that kind of info it has a lease of life.
Try to read and understand what was written, will you!?
> Am 12.11.18 um 20:07 schrieb Andy Burns:
> > 123456789 wrote:
> >
> >> Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> >>
> >>> SMS/MMS plays no role anymore in personal communication.
> >>
> >> in my part of the
> >> world your stated demise of SMS is greatly exaggerated...
> >
> > In the UK usage has peaked, but it's still 82 billion/year with a
> > population of 70 million.
> >
> The providers are desperate because SMS hardly plays a role in personal
> communication any more. For dentist reminders and credentials of
> forgotten logins and that kind of info it has a lease of life.
It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical
general alternative yet.
nospam
Nov 12, 2018, 8:25:19 PM11/12/18
to
In article <pscu84...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
significantly more secure *and* works offline.
<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > >>> SMS/MMS plays no role anymore in personal communication.
> > >>
> > >> in my part of the
> > >> world your stated demise of SMS is greatly exaggerated...
> > >
> > > In the UK usage has peaked, but it's still 82 billion/year with a
> > > population of 70 million.
> > >
> > The providers are desperate because SMS hardly plays a role in personal
> > communication any more. For dentist reminders and credentials of
> > forgotten logins and that kind of info it has a lease of life.
>
> Try to read and understand what was written, will you!?
>
> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical
> general alternative yet.
there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> > >>> SMS/MMS plays no role anymore in personal communication.
> > >>
> > >> in my part of the
> > >> world your stated demise of SMS is greatly exaggerated...
> > >
> > > In the UK usage has peaked, but it's still 82 billion/year with a
> > > population of 70 million.
> > >
> > The providers are desperate because SMS hardly plays a role in personal
> > communication any more. For dentist reminders and credentials of
> > forgotten logins and that kind of info it has a lease of life.
>
> Try to read and understand what was written, will you!?
>
> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical
> general alternative yet.
significantly more secure *and* works offline.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 12, 2018, 8:27:32 PM11/12/18
to
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 12, 2018, 8:29:41 PM11/12/18
to
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
nospam
Nov 12, 2018, 8:39:06 PM11/12/18
to
In article <g4uno4...@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> >> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
> >> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical
> >> general alternative yet.
> >
> > there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> > significantly more secure *and* works offline.
>
> Which is...?
totp
> >> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
> >> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical
> >> general alternative yet.
> >
> > there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> > significantly more secure *and* works offline.
>
> Which is...?
123456789
Nov 12, 2018, 9:03:07 PM11/12/18
to
On 11/12/2018 6:02 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> Facebook app, yes, that one is intrusive. Not installed here.
Over the years I would have missed thousands of photos (and comments)
> Facebook app, yes, that one is intrusive. Not installed here.
from my extended family while they were growing up in various parts of
the country/world if not for Facebook/Instagram. IMO it's a good thing,
warts and all. YMMV...
123456789
Nov 12, 2018, 9:22:53 PM11/12/18
to
On 11/12/2018 6:25 PM, nospam wrote:
like Facebook. If my family only uses it I have no alternative. Course
I could give up SMS alerts and Facebook photos but that's not a
reasonable choice for me. YMMV.
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no
>> practical general alternative yet.
> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative. It's kinda
>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no
>> practical general alternative yet.
> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
like Facebook. If my family only uses it I have no alternative. Course
I could give up SMS alerts and Facebook photos but that's not a
reasonable choice for me. YMMV.
nospam
Nov 12, 2018, 9:42:10 PM11/12/18
to
In article <psdcht$o4q$1...@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
> It's kinda
> like Facebook. If my family only uses it I have no alternative. Course
> I could give up SMS alerts and Facebook photos but that's not a
> reasonable choice for me. YMMV.
it does v.
wrote:
> >> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
> >> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no
> >> practical general alternative yet.
>
> > there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> > significantly more secure *and* works offline.
>
> If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative.
yes there is. choose vendors that take security seriously.
> >> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
> >> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no
> >> practical general alternative yet.
>
> > there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> > significantly more secure *and* works offline.
>
> If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative.
> It's kinda
> like Facebook. If my family only uses it I have no alternative. Course
> I could give up SMS alerts and Facebook photos but that's not a
> reasonable choice for me. YMMV.
123456789
Nov 12, 2018, 9:54:44 PM11/12/18
to
On 11/12/2018 6:42 PM, nospam wrote:
> 123456789 <12...@12345.com> wrote:
>> If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative.
> yes there is. choose vendors that take security seriously.
Change doctors because appointment reminders are by SMS? Snigger...
>> If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative.
> yes there is. choose vendors that take security seriously.
nospam
Nov 12, 2018, 10:06:09 PM11/12/18
to
In article <psdedj$t5$1...@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
for people without a mobile phone, or who disable sms?
reminders here are either voice calls (often automated) and/or paper
mail. another option is email, which is likely how they send sms, via a
gateway.
if you mark your calendar (paper or app) there is no need for an
additional reminder. there's your alternative.
wrote:
> >> If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative.
>
> > yes there is. choose vendors that take security seriously.
>
> Change doctors because appointment reminders are by SMS? Snigger...
sms is a *horrible* method of appointment reminders. what do they do
> >> If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative.
>
> > yes there is. choose vendors that take security seriously.
>
> Change doctors because appointment reminders are by SMS? Snigger...
for people without a mobile phone, or who disable sms?
reminders here are either voice calls (often automated) and/or paper
mail. another option is email, which is likely how they send sms, via a
gateway.
if you mark your calendar (paper or app) there is no need for an
additional reminder. there's your alternative.
123456789
Nov 12, 2018, 10:26:45 PM11/12/18
to
On 11/12/2018 7:06 PM, nospam wrote:
> sms is a *horrible* method of appointment reminders.
I think it is a big improvement over the past.
> what do they do for people without a mobile phone
> or who disable sms?
Only geeks do that. Normal people don't know how.
> reminders here are either voice calls (often automated)
home they left a message. You had to call back to verify you'd be there
or lose the spot.
Just answering yes on the SMS alert is sooooo much easier (IMO).
> and/or paper mail.
Never had that here ever.
> another option is email,
That could work. They send my co-pay receipts by email.
> if you mark your calendar (paper or app) there is no need for an
> additional reminder. there's your alternative.
confirmation. My guess is that lots of old people are forgetful... ;)
nospam
Nov 12, 2018, 10:39:49 PM11/12/18
to
In article <psdg9k$4st$1...@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
> > what do they do for people without a mobile phone
>
> They call their landline.
there's your alternative, and a more reliable one at that.
> > or who disable sms?
>
> Only geeks do that.
not true.
> Normal people don't know how.
yes they do. it's usually a checkbox or menu on the web site when
choosing a plan, or they just call in and ask for it to be disabled.
normal people often disable sms because there is a lot of spam, it's
often cheaper with it disabled and they use one of the many alternative
messaging apps anyway.
does your doc support facebook messenger, whatsapp, signal, viber and
the rest? thought not.
> > reminders here are either voice calls (often automated)
>
> The old way (here) was the office called the landline. If you weren't
> home they left a message. You had to call back to verify you'd be there
> or lose the spot.
here, they call and leave a message, which is assumed to be confirmed
since you pay whether or not you show up, unless you cancel at least
24-48 hours in advance (depending on doc). the confirmation calls are
usually within that window, so it's a bit late to cancel...
wrote:
>
> > sms is a *horrible* method of appointment reminders.
>
> I think it is a big improvement over the past.
i don't.
>
> > sms is a *horrible* method of appointment reminders.
>
> I think it is a big improvement over the past.
> > what do they do for people without a mobile phone
>
> They call their landline.
> > or who disable sms?
>
> Only geeks do that.
> Normal people don't know how.
choosing a plan, or they just call in and ask for it to be disabled.
normal people often disable sms because there is a lot of spam, it's
often cheaper with it disabled and they use one of the many alternative
messaging apps anyway.
does your doc support facebook messenger, whatsapp, signal, viber and
the rest? thought not.
> > reminders here are either voice calls (often automated)
>
> The old way (here) was the office called the landline. If you weren't
> home they left a message. You had to call back to verify you'd be there
> or lose the spot.
since you pay whether or not you show up, unless you cancel at least
24-48 hours in advance (depending on doc). the confirmation calls are
usually within that window, so it's a bit late to cancel...
123456789
Nov 12, 2018, 11:23:15 PM11/12/18
to
On 11/12/2018 7:40 PM, nospam wrote:
> 123456789 <12...@12345.com> wrote:
>>> sms is a *horrible* method of appointment reminders.
> 123456789 <12...@12345.com> wrote:
>>> sms is a *horrible* method of appointment reminders.
>>> what do they do for people without a mobile phone
>>
>> They call their landline.
> there's your alternative,
Are you really suggesting I change my super easy to use SMS doctor
>>
>> They call their landline.
> there's your alternative,
reminder system because some hack might intercept my SMS message and get
my super secret doctor's appointment info?
> and a more reliable one at that.
cordless answering machine? Not likely squared.
> normal people often disable sms because there is a lot of spam,
> it's often cheaper with it disabled and they use one of the many
> alternative messaging apps anyway.
comes, is "free"...
> does your doc support facebook messenger, whatsapp, signal, viber and
> the rest? thought not.
pretty universal.
> you pay whether or not you show up, unless you cancel at least 24-48
> hours in advance (depending on doc).
to show. However the doc would lose much more when my insurance doesn't
pay. So I imagine that's why the required reminder and loss of spot with
no confirmation.
nospam
Nov 12, 2018, 11:47:46 PM11/12/18
to
In article <psdjji$1ehd$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
wrote:
> > and a more reliable one at that.
>
> More reliable than my VoIP landline? Not likely. More reliable than my
> cordless answering machine? Not likely squared.
sms is not guaranteed delivery, making voip more reliable, and who uses
answering machines anymore? if you're not home, it rolls to voicemail,
optionally forwarding to one or more alternate numbers, such as a
cellphone.
wrote:
> > and a more reliable one at that.
>
> More reliable than my VoIP landline? Not likely. More reliable than my
> cordless answering machine? Not likely squared.
answering machines anymore? if you're not home, it rolls to voicemail,
optionally forwarding to one or more alternate numbers, such as a
cellphone.
nospam
Nov 12, 2018, 11:47:54 PM11/12/18
to
> > and a more reliable one at that.
>
> More reliable than my VoIP landline? Not likely. More reliable than my
> cordless answering machine? Not likely squared.
>
> More reliable than my VoIP landline? Not likely. More reliable than my
> cordless answering machine? Not likely squared.
Joerg Lorenz
Nov 13, 2018, 12:06:28 AM11/13/18
to
Am 13.11.18 um 02:25 schrieb nospam:
Frank has *always* to be right at any price. We call it *Klugscheisser*
in German.
in German.
Joerg Lorenz
Nov 13, 2018, 12:08:40 AM11/13/18
to
Am 13.11.18 um 02:42 schrieb nospam:
solution and it is completely disregarding privacy.
> In article <psdcht$o4q$1...@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
>>>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no
>>>> practical general alternative yet.
>>
>>> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
>>> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
>>
>> If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative.
>
> yes there is. choose vendors that take security seriously.
There is always an alternative solution. SMS is the most insecure
> wrote:
>
>>>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
>>>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no
>>>> practical general alternative yet.
>>
>>> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
>>> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
>>
>> If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative.
>
> yes there is. choose vendors that take security seriously.
solution and it is completely disregarding privacy.
Joerg Lorenz
Nov 13, 2018, 12:12:12 AM11/13/18
to
Am 13.11.18 um 03:54 schrieb 123456789:
Nobody needs these SMS-reminders anyway. Everyone has a calendar on the
mobile phone.
mobile phone.
nospam
Nov 13, 2018, 12:21:40 AM11/13/18
to
In article <psdmfb$sqe$3...@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
to the refrigerator, using a fridge magnet...
wrote:
> >>> If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative.
> >
> >> yes there is. choose vendors that take security seriously.
> >
> > Change doctors because appointment reminders are by SMS? Snigger...
> >
> Nobody needs these SMS-reminders anyway. Everyone has a calendar on the
> mobile phone.
or do it the old-fashioned way, stick the reminder card they give you
> >>> If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative.
> >
> >> yes there is. choose vendors that take security seriously.
> >
> > Change doctors because appointment reminders are by SMS? Snigger...
> >
> Nobody needs these SMS-reminders anyway. Everyone has a calendar on the
> mobile phone.
to the refrigerator, using a fridge magnet...
nospam
Nov 13, 2018, 12:21:40 AM11/13/18
to
In article <psdm8o$sqe$2...@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
wrote:
> >>>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
> >>>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no
> >>>> practical general alternative yet.
> >>
> >>> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> >>> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
> >>
> >> If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative.
> >
> > yes there is. choose vendors that take security seriously.
>
> There is always an alternative solution. SMS is the most insecure
> solution and it is completely disregarding privacy.
yep.
> >>>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
> >>>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no
> >>>> practical general alternative yet.
> >>
> >>> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> >>> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
> >>
> >> If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative.
> >
> > yes there is. choose vendors that take security seriously.
>
> There is always an alternative solution. SMS is the most insecure
> solution and it is completely disregarding privacy.
123456789
Nov 13, 2018, 12:22:00 AM11/13/18
to
On 11/12/2018 9:32 PM, nospam wrote:
> sms is not guaranteed delivery
Neither is VoIP.
> making voip more reliable,
Not my VoIP. It goes out occasionally. Sometimes to upgrade the modem,
sometimes for no reason. Definitely (IMO) not as reliable as my mobile
which I've not caught out of service in recent memory. I came close to
doing away with the landline again this year but customer retention gave
me such a deal... Maybe next year...
> and who uses answering machines anymore?
Me. It came with the cordless phone system.
> if you're not home, it rolls to voicemail,
The answering machine does the same and can likewise be remotely
accessed by outside phones.
> optionally forwarding to one or more alternate numbers, such as a
> cellphone.
I have that capability but don't use it.
> sms is not guaranteed delivery
Neither is VoIP.
> making voip more reliable,
Not my VoIP. It goes out occasionally. Sometimes to upgrade the modem,
sometimes for no reason. Definitely (IMO) not as reliable as my mobile
which I've not caught out of service in recent memory. I came close to
doing away with the landline again this year but customer retention gave
me such a deal... Maybe next year...
> and who uses answering machines anymore?
> if you're not home, it rolls to voicemail,
accessed by outside phones.
> optionally forwarding to one or more alternate numbers, such as a
> cellphone.
nospam
Nov 13, 2018, 12:50:39 AM11/13/18
to
In article <psdn1n$1iud$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
rf, and in the unlikely event internet connectivity is impacted, calls
will roll to voicemail.
> > making voip more reliable,
>
> Not my VoIP. It goes out occasionally. Sometimes to upgrade the modem,
> sometimes for no reason.
modem? all you need is a voip phone or an ata on your local lan, which
you can upgrade at your own convenience, not theirs, or not upgrade it
at all.
> Definitely (IMO) not as reliable as my mobile
> which I've not caught out of service in recent memory.
get a better voip provider.
sms goes out too, but even when it's active, delivery is not guaranteed.
and sms very definitely goes out:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/ProjectFi/comments/8lbtcq/text_messaging_is_no
t_working/dzecni3/>
<https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/7hqdle/tmobile_sms_outage_in_
all_markets/>
<https://www.syracuse.com/state/index.ssf/2018/09/verizon_wireless_outag
es.html>
> I came close to
> doing away with the landline again this year but customer retention gave
> me such a deal... Maybe next year...
i ditched landline long ago. for me, voip is about 1/50th the cost and
does a *lot* more. porting was a breeze.
> > and who uses answering machines anymore?
>
> Me. It came with the cordless phone system.
>
> > if you're not home, it rolls to voicemail,
>
> The answering machine does the same and can likewise be remotely
> accessed by outside phones.
my voip system emails a sound file, or i can call in to listen to them.
or, i can use my portable voip phone on wifi...
wrote:
>
> > sms is not guaranteed delivery
>
> Neither is VoIP.
nothing is 100%, but it's more reliable than sms since it doesn't use
>
> > sms is not guaranteed delivery
>
> Neither is VoIP.
rf, and in the unlikely event internet connectivity is impacted, calls
will roll to voicemail.
> > making voip more reliable,
>
> Not my VoIP. It goes out occasionally. Sometimes to upgrade the modem,
> sometimes for no reason.
you can upgrade at your own convenience, not theirs, or not upgrade it
at all.
> Definitely (IMO) not as reliable as my mobile
> which I've not caught out of service in recent memory.
sms goes out too, but even when it's active, delivery is not guaranteed.
and sms very definitely goes out:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/ProjectFi/comments/8lbtcq/text_messaging_is_no
t_working/dzecni3/>
<https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/7hqdle/tmobile_sms_outage_in_
all_markets/>
<https://www.syracuse.com/state/index.ssf/2018/09/verizon_wireless_outag
es.html>
> I came close to
> doing away with the landline again this year but customer retention gave
> me such a deal... Maybe next year...
does a *lot* more. porting was a breeze.
> > and who uses answering machines anymore?
>
> Me. It came with the cordless phone system.
>
> > if you're not home, it rolls to voicemail,
>
> The answering machine does the same and can likewise be remotely
> accessed by outside phones.
or, i can use my portable voip phone on wifi...
Andy Burns
Nov 13, 2018, 1:35:45 AM11/13/18
to
nospam wrote:
> sms is a*horrible* method of appointment reminders. what do they do
> sms is a*horrible* method of appointment reminders. what do they do
> for people without a mobile phone
Deliver them to a landline.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 2:11:24 AM11/13/18
to
Time Based One Time Password?
Oh, common!
And where is the "all phones must have it out of the factory" requirement?
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 2:12:51 AM11/13/18
to
On 13/11/2018 02.42, nospam wrote:
> In article <psdcht$o4q$1...@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
>>>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no
>>>> practical general alternative yet.
>>
>>> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
>>> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
>>
>> If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative.
>
> yes there is. choose vendors that take security seriously.
Ha, ha :-p
> In article <psdcht$o4q$1...@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
>>>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no
>>>> practical general alternative yet.
>>
>>> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
>>> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
>>
>> If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative.
>
> yes there is. choose vendors that take security seriously.
>
>> It's kinda
>> like Facebook. If my family only uses it I have no alternative. Course
>> I could give up SMS alerts and Facebook photos but that's not a
>> reasonable choice for me. YMMV.
>
> it does v.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 2:17:59 AM11/13/18
to
On 13/11/2018 03.06, nospam wrote:
> In article <psdedj$t5$1...@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative.
>>
>>> yes there is. choose vendors that take security seriously.
>>
>> Change doctors because appointment reminders are by SMS? Snigger...
>
> sms is a *horrible* method of appointment reminders. what do they do
> for people without a mobile phone, or who disable sms?
Nobody in his sane mind disables SMS :-P
> In article <psdedj$t5$1...@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> If MY vendors only alert by SMS then there is NO alternative.
>>
>>> yes there is. choose vendors that take security seriously.
>>
>> Change doctors because appointment reminders are by SMS? Snigger...
>
> sms is a *horrible* method of appointment reminders. what do they do
> for people without a mobile phone, or who disable sms?
Anyway, the tendency here is "no fixed phone, replaced by mobile".
>
> reminders here are either voice calls (often automated) and/or paper
> mail. another option is email, which is likely how they send sms, via a
> gateway.
connection to the other side. Or an answering machine replies. It is
quite funny when an automated calling machine hits an automated
answering machine.
>
> if you mark your calendar (paper or app) there is no need for an
> additional reminder. there's your alternative.
>
Picking straws again?
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 2:23:05 AM11/13/18
to
On 13/11/2018 03.40, nospam wrote:
> In article <psdg9k$4st$1...@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> sms is a *horrible* method of appointment reminders.
>>
>> I think it is a big improvement over the past.
>
> i don't.
>
>>> what do they do for people without a mobile phone
>>
>> They call their landline.
>
> there's your alternative, and a more reliable one at that.
>
>>> or who disable sms?
>>
>> Only geeks do that.
>
> not true.
>
>> Normal people don't know how.
>
> yes they do.
I don't. :-P
> In article <psdg9k$4st$1...@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> sms is a *horrible* method of appointment reminders.
>>
>> I think it is a big improvement over the past.
>
> i don't.
>
>>> what do they do for people without a mobile phone
>>
>> They call their landline.
>
> there's your alternative, and a more reliable one at that.
>
>>> or who disable sms?
>>
>> Only geeks do that.
>
> not true.
>
>> Normal people don't know how.
>
> yes they do.
it's usually a checkbox or menu on the web site when
> choosing a plan, or they just call in and ask for it to be disabled.
>
> normal people often disable sms because there is a lot of spam, it's
> often cheaper with it disabled and they use one of the many alternative
> messaging apps anyway.
>
> does your doc support facebook messenger, whatsapp, signal, viber and
> the rest? thought not.
I communicate with other professionals via whatsapp. Just not my doctors.
>
>>> reminders here are either voice calls (often automated)
>>
>> The old way (here) was the office called the landline. If you weren't
>> home they left a message. You had to call back to verify you'd be there
>> or lose the spot.
>
> here, they call and leave a message, which is assumed to be confirmed
> since you pay whether or not you show up, unless you cancel at least
> 24-48 hours in advance (depending on doc). the confirmation calls are
> usually within that window, so it's a bit late to cancel...
>
Or it is free.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 2:27:13 AM11/13/18
to
otherwise they are charged money for the automated system.
Other people just disable it, like me.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 3:29:06 AM11/13/18
to
On 13/11/2018 06.21, 123456789 wrote:
> On 11/12/2018 9:32 PM, nospam wrote:
>
>> sms is not guaranteed delivery
>
> Neither is VoIP.
>
>> making voip more reliable,
>
> Not my VoIP. It goes out occasionally. Sometimes to upgrade the modem,
> sometimes for no reason. Definitely (IMO) not as reliable as my mobile
> which I've not caught out of service in recent memory.
Same here, except that it emulates POT, they don't give us the
> On 11/12/2018 9:32 PM, nospam wrote:
>
>> sms is not guaranteed delivery
>
> Neither is VoIP.
>
>> making voip more reliable,
>
> Not my VoIP. It goes out occasionally. Sometimes to upgrade the modem,
> sometimes for no reason. Definitely (IMO) not as reliable as my mobile
> which I've not caught out of service in recent memory.
credentials to use VoIP. Sometimes it resets, any time of the day, and
stays out for minutes.
> I came close to
> doing away with the landline again this year but customer retention gave
> me such a deal... Maybe next year...
>
>> and who uses answering machines anymore?
>
> Me. It came with the cordless phone system.
service for some time when they started charging for the service.
>
>> if you're not home, it rolls to voicemail,
>
> The answering machine does the same and can likewise be remotely
> accessed by outside phones.
>
>> optionally forwarding to one or more alternate numbers, such as a
>> cellphone.
>
> I have that capability but don't use it.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 3:32:59 AM11/13/18
to
it or not. Yes, it is VoIP inside, but they don't give the credentials
and change the system anyway when hackers publish the working details,
so that we can not use it.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 3:34:06 AM11/13/18
to
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 3:34:55 AM11/13/18
to
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Piet
Nov 13, 2018, 4:51:52 AM11/13/18
to
Carlos E. R. wrote:
> Piet wrote:
>> I'm not talking about security, but about privacy.
>> And wa = fb isn't just a privacy issue, but a privacy disaster.
>
> Ok, then: what privacy issue?
wa = fb
-p
> Piet wrote:
>> I'm not talking about security, but about privacy.
>> And wa = fb isn't just a privacy issue, but a privacy disaster.
>
> Ok, then: what privacy issue?
wa = fb
-p
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 5:05:43 AM11/13/18
to
Same company, yes. Just do not install the facebook app. Then they can
not share the phone book.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Joerg Lorenz
Nov 13, 2018, 5:57:37 AM11/13/18
to
Am 13.11.18 um 06:21 schrieb nospam:
+1
SMS for these kind of reminders is more than redundant.
SMS for these kind of reminders is more than redundant.
Joerg Lorenz
Nov 13, 2018, 5:59:14 AM11/13/18
to
Am 13.11.18 um 09:34 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
Then they will probabely be not able to read and understand the SMS.
*SCNR*
*SCNR*
Piet
Nov 13, 2018, 6:39:03 AM11/13/18
to
Carlos E. R. wrote:
> Piet wrote:
>> Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> Piet wrote:
>>>> I'm not talking about security, but about privacy.
>>>> And wa = fb isn't just a privacy issue, but a privacy disaster.
>>>
>>> Ok, then: what privacy issue?
>>
>> wa = fb
>
> Nope.
Get a life.
> Piet wrote:
>> Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> Piet wrote:
>>>> I'm not talking about security, but about privacy.
>>>> And wa = fb isn't just a privacy issue, but a privacy disaster.
>>>
>>> Ok, then: what privacy issue?
>>
>> wa = fb
>
> Nope.
-p
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Nov 13, 2018, 6:41:55 AM11/13/18
to
In message <g4vceo...@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
FWIW: I'm a many-decades computer user, but a relative newcomer to
Android. I find the way it works decidedly NON-intuitive. SMS is a case
in point: my smartphone obviously _does_ do texts, but how to access
ones it has received I struggle with. (Another trivial example: it took
me quite a while to figure out how to accept an incoming voice call! And
I'm _not_ stupid; but "swipe right" - which is how one does it on my
smartphone - did not seem at all obvious to me.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Q. How much is 2 + 2?
A. Thank you so much for asking your question.
Are you still having this problem? I'll be delighted to help you. Please
restate the problem twice and include your Windows version along with
all error logs.
- Mayayana in alt.windows7.general, 2018-11-1
<robin_...@es.invalid> writes:
>On 13/11/2018 03.40, nospam wrote:
>> In article <psdg9k$4st$1...@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
>> wrote:
[some attributions snipped - not by me]
>On 13/11/2018 03.40, nospam wrote:
>> In article <psdg9k$4st$1...@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> what do they do for people without a mobile phone
>>>
>>> They call their landline.
[]
>>>
>>> They call their landline.
>>>> or who disable sms?
>>>
>>> Only geeks do that.
>>
>> not true.
>>
>>> Normal people don't know how.
>>
>> yes they do.
>
>I don't. :-P
[]
>>>
>>> Only geeks do that.
>>
>> not true.
>>
>>> Normal people don't know how.
>>
>> yes they do.
>
>I don't. :-P
FWIW: I'm a many-decades computer user, but a relative newcomer to
Android. I find the way it works decidedly NON-intuitive. SMS is a case
in point: my smartphone obviously _does_ do texts, but how to access
ones it has received I struggle with. (Another trivial example: it took
me quite a while to figure out how to accept an incoming voice call! And
I'm _not_ stupid; but "swipe right" - which is how one does it on my
smartphone - did not seem at all obvious to me.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Q. How much is 2 + 2?
A. Thank you so much for asking your question.
Are you still having this problem? I'll be delighted to help you. Please
restate the problem twice and include your Windows version along with
all error logs.
- Mayayana in alt.windows7.general, 2018-11-1
M.L.
Nov 13, 2018, 7:59:45 AM11/13/18
to
>I travel al lot in the USA and I can tell you this is not true. And
>Facebook Messenger is there what WhatsApp is in Europe.
>
>SMS/MMS plays no role anymore in personal communication. Even not the
>most senior friends and relatives are using SMS or MMS anymore.
You must have an unusual group of American friends. In any case, SMS
is still extremely popular in America, and WhatsApp is not.
nospam
Nov 13, 2018, 9:03:02 AM11/13/18
to
In article <g4vbor...@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> Oh, common!
very much so.
> And where is the "all phones must have it out of the factory" requirement?
no such requirement.
there are *numerous* totp apps not just for phones, but also laptops
and desktops, making it both more secure than sms and more convenient
too.
<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
> >>>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical
> >>>> general alternative yet.
> >>>
> >>> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> >>> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
> >>
> >> Which is...?
> >
> > totp
> >
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+totp&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-
> b>
>
> Time Based One Time Password?
yes
> >>>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
> >>>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical
> >>>> general alternative yet.
> >>>
> >>> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> >>> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
> >>
> >> Which is...?
> >
> > totp
> >
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+totp&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-
> b>
>
> Time Based One Time Password?
> Oh, common!
very much so.
> And where is the "all phones must have it out of the factory" requirement?
there are *numerous* totp apps not just for phones, but also laptops
and desktops, making it both more secure than sms and more convenient
too.
nospam
Nov 13, 2018, 9:03:03 AM11/13/18
to
In article <2hiludtromg0varb3...@4ax.com>, M.L.
it's not zero, but it's definitely not as popular as facebook messenger
in usa and others elsewhere.
<https://e.infogram.com/388bb251-c083-4e78-a215-8d3269a4f8a3?src=embed>
in usa and others elsewhere.
<https://e.infogram.com/388bb251-c083-4e78-a215-8d3269a4f8a3?src=embed>
nospam
Nov 13, 2018, 9:03:03 AM11/13/18
to
In article <g4vc56...@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
does more and costs less, which means whatever sms they get is
guaranteed to be unwanted.
<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> > sms is a *horrible* method of appointment reminders. what do they do
> > for people without a mobile phone, or who disable sms?
>
> Nobody in his sane mind disables SMS :-P
of course they do, because they're using one of the alternatives that
> > sms is a *horrible* method of appointment reminders. what do they do
> > for people without a mobile phone, or who disable sms?
>
> Nobody in his sane mind disables SMS :-P
does more and costs less, which means whatever sms they get is
guaranteed to be unwanted.
nospam
Nov 13, 2018, 9:08:14 AM11/13/18
to
In article <g4vghq...@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> No VoIP providers here.
if you have internet access, which you obviously do, you have voip
providers.
<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> No VoIP providers here.
if you have internet access, which you obviously do, you have voip
providers.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 9:37:29 AM11/13/18
to
Your choice, certainly :-P
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 9:38:13 AM11/13/18
to
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 9:40:29 AM11/13/18
to
On 13/11/2018 15.03, nospam wrote:
services. It is your choice, of course: no SMS, no banking :-P
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 9:43:20 AM11/13/18
to
The phone companies obviously use VoIP, but they do it in a way that we
can not access it, and give use the traditional service instead, with
traditional tarification.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 9:46:21 AM11/13/18
to
On 13/11/2018 12.40, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <g4vceo...@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> writes:
>> On 13/11/2018 03.40, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <psdg9k$4st$1...@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
>>> wrote:
> [some attributions snipped - not by me]
>>>>> what do they do for people without a mobile phone
>>>>
>>>> They call their landline.
> []
>>>>> or who disable sms?
>>>>
>>>> Only geeks do that.
>>>
>>> not true.
>>>
>>>> Normal people don't know how.
>>>
>>> yes they do.
>>
>> I don't. :-P
> []
> FWIW: I'm a many-decades computer user, but a relative newcomer to
> Android. I find the way it works decidedly NON-intuitive. SMS is a case
> in point: my smartphone obviously _does_ do texts, but how to access
> ones it has received I struggle with. (Another trivial example: it took
> me quite a while to figure out how to accept an incoming voice call! And
> I'm _not_ stupid; but "swipe right" - which is how one does it on my
> smartphone - did not seem at all obvious to me.)
Oh, absolutely!
> In message <g4vceo...@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> writes:
>> On 13/11/2018 03.40, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <psdg9k$4st$1...@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
>>> wrote:
> [some attributions snipped - not by me]
>>>>> what do they do for people without a mobile phone
>>>>
>>>> They call their landline.
> []
>>>>> or who disable sms?
>>>>
>>>> Only geeks do that.
>>>
>>> not true.
>>>
>>>> Normal people don't know how.
>>>
>>> yes they do.
>>
>> I don't. :-P
> []
> FWIW: I'm a many-decades computer user, but a relative newcomer to
> Android. I find the way it works decidedly NON-intuitive. SMS is a case
> in point: my smartphone obviously _does_ do texts, but how to access
> ones it has received I struggle with. (Another trivial example: it took
> me quite a while to figure out how to accept an incoming voice call! And
> I'm _not_ stupid; but "swipe right" - which is how one does it on my
> smartphone - did not seem at all obvious to me.)
I had to phone a friend and ask him how to answer the phone.
Now it look obvious to me, but not that day.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
nospam
Nov 13, 2018, 9:54:24 AM11/13/18
to
In article <g50686...@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> The phone companies obviously use VoIP, but they do it in a way that we
> can not access it, and give use the traditional service instead, with
> traditional tarification.
use an independent voip provider.
here's a list:
<https://www.voip-catalog.com/voip_countries_spain_1.html>
<http://www.voipproviderslist.com/country/voip-spain/voip-providers-spai
n/>
<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> >> No VoIP providers here.
> >
> > if you have internet access, which you obviously do, you have voip
> > providers.
>
> Nope. Not locally, that is, with local phone numbers.
yes with local numbers.
> >> No VoIP providers here.
> >
> > if you have internet access, which you obviously do, you have voip
> > providers.
>
> Nope. Not locally, that is, with local phone numbers.
> The phone companies obviously use VoIP, but they do it in a way that we
> can not access it, and give use the traditional service instead, with
> traditional tarification.
here's a list:
<https://www.voip-catalog.com/voip_countries_spain_1.html>
<http://www.voipproviderslist.com/country/voip-spain/voip-providers-spai
n/>
Frank Slootweg
Nov 13, 2018, 10:04:54 AM11/13/18
to
Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 13.11.18 um 02:25 schrieb nospam:
> > In article <pscu84...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> in German.
You own me a new laptop for posting such a PKB-to-the-max without a
beverage alert!
And why do *your* - continual - reading/comprehension problems have
anything to do with *me* having to be right at any price?
BTW, you - and nospam - might want to look up what the qualifiers
"practical" and "general" *really* mean.
> Am 13.11.18 um 02:25 schrieb nospam:
> > In article <pscu84...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> > <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
> >> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical
> >> general alternative yet.
> >
> > there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> > significantly more secure *and* works offline.
> >
> Frank has *always* to be right at any price. We call it *Klugscheisser*
> >> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
> >> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical
> >> general alternative yet.
> >
> > there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> > significantly more secure *and* works offline.
> >
> in German.
You own me a new laptop for posting such a PKB-to-the-max without a
beverage alert!
And why do *your* - continual - reading/comprehension problems have
anything to do with *me* having to be right at any price?
BTW, you - and nospam - might want to look up what the qualifiers
"practical" and "general" *really* mean.
Frank Slootweg
Nov 13, 2018, 10:12:41 AM11/13/18
to
Carlos E. R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 13/11/2018 02.39, nospam wrote:
> > In article <g4uno4...@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> > <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
> >>>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical
> >>>> general alternative yet.
> >>>
> >>> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> >>> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
> >>
> >> Which is...?
> >
> >>>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
> >>>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical
> >>>> general alternative yet.
> >>>
> >>> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> >>> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
> >>
> >
> > totp
>
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+totp&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b>
>
> Time Based One Time Password?
>
> Oh, common!
> Time Based One Time Password?
>
>
> And where is the "all phones must have it out of the factory" requirement?
Be gentle with nospam! He's having problems with complex qualifiers
> And where is the "all phones must have it out of the factory" requirement?
such as "practical" and "general".
And anyway, what does Top of the Pops have to do with anything!? :-)
123456789
Nov 13, 2018, 10:18:28 AM11/13/18
to
>>> sms is not guaranteed delivery
>>
>> Neither is VoIP.
> nothing is 100%, but it's more reliable than sms since it doesn't use
>>
>> Neither is VoIP.
> rf,
RF or wire, the medium matters not. Wires and towers can come down.
Usually it's the electronics that fails.
> and in the unlikely event internet connectivity is impacted, calls
> will roll to voicemail.
If a cell connection fails SMS is saved and sent later.
> modem? all you need is a voip phone or an ata on your local lan, which
> you can upgrade at your own convenience, not theirs, or not upgrade it
> at all.
My modem is a combo phone/internet. There is no extra charge for using
the providers modem and letting them upgrade/replace it when necessary.
> sms goes out too, but even when it's active, delivery is not guaranteed.
And the doctor's office could dial the wrong phone number. Shit happens.
> i ditched landline long ago. for me, voip is about 1/50th the cost and
> does a *lot* more. porting was a breeze.
We're both damn glad you're not me...
>> The answering machine does the same and can likewise be remotely
>> accessed by outside phones.
>
Got me there. I just jot down the number to call back.
> or i can call in to listen to them.
My answering machine has that capability also.
> or, i can use my portable voip phone on wifi...
I'm more normal. I just use my cell when out... ;)
123456789
Nov 13, 2018, 10:18:34 AM11/13/18
to
On 11/13/2018 1:29 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> One landline provider now offers internet without phone. If we ask.
I have a choice of 2 providers. One twisted pair DSL/satellite and the
> One landline provider now offers internet without phone. If we ask.
other cable Internet/TV/phone. Either can be split into separate
services. They both have "deals" and I have to call in every year to get
the best one. I usually stick with the cable Internet because DSL is so
slow.
> I have the old answering machine from the old times. It went back
> into service for some time when they started charging for the
> service.
home, push ONE button on the answering machine, and listen to the calls
on a SPEAKER while jotting down numbers. No dialing number/codes
necessary, though my answering machine has that capability if I want to
check my messages when out and about.
nospam
Nov 13, 2018, 10:21:36 AM11/13/18
to
In article <pset5e...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > >>>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
> > >>>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical
> > >>>> general alternative yet.
> > >>>
> > >>> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> > >>> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
> > >>
> > >> Which is...?
> > >
> > > totp
> >
> > <https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+totp&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firef
> > ox-b>
> >
> > Time Based One Time Password?
> >
> > Oh, common!
> >
> > And where is the "all phones must have it out of the factory" requirement?
>
> Be gentle with nospam! He's having problems with complex qualifiers
> such as "practical" and "general".
not in the least, and you've now resorted to ad hominem attacks.
> > >>>> It's not (only) for "credentials of forgotten logins". 123456789
> > >>>> mentioned quite different use for SMS, for which there is no practical
> > >>>> general alternative yet.
> > >>>
> > >>> there definitely is a very practical alternative, one which is also
> > >>> significantly more secure *and* works offline.
> > >>
> > >> Which is...?
> > >
> > > totp
> >
> > <https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+totp&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firef
> > ox-b>
> >
> > Time Based One Time Password?
> >
> > Oh, common!
> >
> > And where is the "all phones must have it out of the factory" requirement?
>
> Be gentle with nospam! He's having problems with complex qualifiers
> such as "practical" and "general".
Frank Slootweg
Nov 13, 2018, 10:50:35 AM11/13/18
to
done! You just have to change banks, move to another country or similar
minor inconviences. And when you've done that, there will be another
problem with some other 'provider' so you once again change provider
or/and company. Peanuts.
BTW, just for laughs have a look at the server and client
implementations on the Wikipedia 'Time-based One-time Password
algorithm' page to see what a total mess this "very practical
alternative" is.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-based_One-time_Password_algorithm>
FYI, my bank(s) are using OTPs with proprietary tokens similar to the
CAP readers which MC uses for their CAP. (There you have some more
acronyms/initialisms to look up! :-)
But as they're proprietary, they're obviously *not* the required
"practical general alternative" for SMS.
nospam
Nov 13, 2018, 11:13:58 AM11/13/18
to
In article <psevbq...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
end users can download any of a number of totp apps, including google
authenticator, microsoft authenticator, lastpass, 1password, authy,
freeotp, as well as several others. there are numerous server-side
options as well.
unlike sms, totp is not limited to only one device, providing backup
sources for codes should one device (e.g., phone) be lost or stolen or
otherwise inoperative. it's also more convenient to use a desktop app
when using a desktop computer.
unlike sms, nothing is sent over the air, therefore nothing can be
intercepted or hijacked, making it *much* more secure than sms.
<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> BTW, just for laughs have a look at the server and client
> implementations on the Wikipedia 'Time-based One-time Password
> algorithm' page to see what a total mess this "very practical
> alternative" is.
there is no mess and it's a very straightforward algorithm.
>
> BTW, just for laughs have a look at the server and client
> implementations on the Wikipedia 'Time-based One-time Password
> algorithm' page to see what a total mess this "very practical
> alternative" is.
end users can download any of a number of totp apps, including google
authenticator, microsoft authenticator, lastpass, 1password, authy,
freeotp, as well as several others. there are numerous server-side
options as well.
unlike sms, totp is not limited to only one device, providing backup
sources for codes should one device (e.g., phone) be lost or stolen or
otherwise inoperative. it's also more convenient to use a desktop app
when using a desktop computer.
unlike sms, nothing is sent over the air, therefore nothing can be
intercepted or hijacked, making it *much* more secure than sms.
Joerg Lorenz
Nov 13, 2018, 12:05:26 PM11/13/18
to
Am 13.11.18 um 15:43 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
SIP?
That was easy.
That was easy.
123456789
Nov 13, 2018, 12:26:34 PM11/13/18
to
On 11/13/2018 9:13 AM, nospam wrote:
> unlike sms, totp is not limited to only one device, providing backup
> sources for codes should one device (e.g., phone) be lost or stolen
> or otherwise inoperative.
Unlikely problem. My apps use a one time SMS 2 Factor Authentication
> unlike sms, totp is not limited to only one device, providing backup
> sources for codes should one device (e.g., phone) be lost or stolen
> or otherwise inoperative.
code. That is they use the code to certify the device ONCE. After that
there is only my password required to access a sensitive app on that
device. If bad guys know my password they can't access my account on a
non-certified device and if they have access to my certified device they
don't know my password.
> unlike sms, nothing is sent over the air, therefore nothing can be
> intercepted or hijacked,
that bad guys will get it. And even if they do how would they use it?
The banking SMS code to certify my phone was sent over two years ago...
> making it *much* more secure than sms.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 12:48:08 PM11/13/18
to
> BTW, just for laughs have a look at the server and client
> implementations on the Wikipedia 'Time-based One-time Password
> algorithm' page to see what a total mess this "very practical
> alternative" is.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-based_One-time_Password_algorithm>
>
> FYI, my bank(s) are using OTPs with proprietary tokens similar to the
> CAP readers which MC uses for their CAP. (There you have some more
> acronyms/initialisms to look up! :-)
>
> But as they're proprietary, they're obviously *not* the required
> "practical general alternative" for SMS.
The most I have seen here, and not always, are "push" messages with
Android applications. But it is an opt-in, the default is SMS. And
certainly, SMS are not really safe, I know.
But if I'm using the Android App and I have to be sent a code via
another method than the App - in order to fit the definition of two
factor auth - they are not going to send a push message via same app! So
SMS it is. But as it is the same device, the app reads automatically the
SMS, which defeats somewhat the purpose.
Well, us non rich people have to accept what we get :-p
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 12:51:27 PM11/13/18
to
(not an attack; we are just having some humour at his cost :-) )
>
> And anyway, what does Top of the Pops have to do with anything!? :-)
>
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 1:02:34 PM11/13/18
to
On 13/11/2018 16.18, 123456789 wrote:
> On 11/12/2018 10:50 PM, nospam wrote:
>> 123456789 <12...@12345.com> wrote:
>
>>>> sms is not guaranteed delivery
>>>
>>> Neither is VoIP.
>
>> nothing is 100%, but it's more reliable than sms since it doesn't use
>> rf,
>
> RF or wire, the medium matters not. Wires and towers can come down.
> Usually it's the electronics that fails.
More probably the software.
> On 11/12/2018 10:50 PM, nospam wrote:
>> 123456789 <12...@12345.com> wrote:
>
>>>> sms is not guaranteed delivery
>>>
>>> Neither is VoIP.
>
>> nothing is 100%, but it's more reliable than sms since it doesn't use
>> rf,
>
> RF or wire, the medium matters not. Wires and towers can come down.
> Usually it's the electronics that fails.
>
>> and in the unlikely event internet connectivity is impacted, calls
>> will roll to voicemail.
>
> If a cell connection fails SMS is saved and sent later.
>
>> modem? all you need is a voip phone or an ata on your local lan, which
>> you can upgrade at your own convenience, not theirs, or not upgrade it
>> at all.
>
> My modem is a combo phone/internet. There is no extra charge for using
> the providers modem and letting them upgrade/replace it when necessary.
don't publish the specs, the needed configuration. A configuration they
can change remotely any time, as a further complication. If I replace
the router and they try and can not change the config, and I lose
service, it is my fault.
>
>> sms goes out too, but even when it's active, delivery is not guaranteed.
>
> And the doctor's office could dial the wrong phone number. Shit happens.
>
>> i ditched landline long ago. for me, voip is about 1/50th the cost and
>> does a *lot* more. porting was a breeze.
>
> We're both damn glad you're not me...
to POTs emulation inside my home. But they do not disclose the
credentials or config to setup VoIp. Some people do, hacking the setup
and publishing the details somewhere. Then the company changes something
and it stops working. Cat and mouse.
I could just forward the calls anywhere for free. I could set a robotic
answering machine. A zillion things. No such luck - if I want to keep my
number, a number by which my family, my relatives, my friends, my
unknowns, can call me since half a century (well, they called my
parents, I inherited it), so I'm not keen on changing it.
>
>>> The answering machine does the same and can likewise be remotely
>>> accessed by outside phones.
>>
>> my voip system emails a sound file,
>
> Got me there. I just jot down the number to call back.
>
>> or i can call in to listen to them.
>
> My answering machine has that capability also.
>
>> or, i can use my portable voip phone on wifi...
>
> I'm more normal. I just use my cell when out... ;)
>
>
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 1:08:03 PM11/13/18
to
On 13/11/2018 15.54, nospam wrote:
> In article <g50686...@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> No VoIP providers here.
>>>
>>> if you have internet access, which you obviously do, you have voip
>>> providers.
>>
>> Nope. Not locally, that is, with local phone numbers.
>
> yes with local numbers.
Ah, yes? Please give me the link for such a service in Spain.
> In article <g50686...@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> No VoIP providers here.
>>>
>>> if you have internet access, which you obviously do, you have voip
>>> providers.
>>
>> Nope. Not locally, that is, with local phone numbers.
>
> yes with local numbers.
They must grant me the same phone number I have now, and they must
handle the dropping of the phone line with Movistar (ie, land line
portability to VoIp), but keep internet.
>
>> The phone companies obviously use VoIP, but they do it in a way that we
>> can not access it, and give use the traditional service instead, with
>> traditional tarification.
>
> use an independent voip provider.
>
> here's a list:
> <https://www.voip-catalog.com/voip_countries_spain_1.html>
> <http://www.voipproviderslist.com/country/voip-spain/voip-providers-spai
> n/>
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
nospam
Nov 13, 2018, 1:08:33 PM11/13/18
to
In article <psf1g7$1uq6$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
or vish.
> > unlike sms, nothing is sent over the air, therefore nothing can be
> > intercepted or hijacked,
>
> Since the 2FA SMS code is only sent ONCE per device it's very unlikely
> that bad guys will get it. And even if they do how would they use it?
> The banking SMS code to certify my phone was sent over two years ago...
hijack your phone and game over. log in with a new device, new code is
sent to them, not you, and they're in.
> > making it *much* more secure than sms.
>
> Sometimes too much security is a PITA...
except that totp is both more secure *and* less of a pain.
u2f, on the other hand, is a lot more secure, but also a lot more of a
pain. some things require that. most do not.
wrote:
>
> > unlike sms, totp is not limited to only one device, providing backup
> > sources for codes should one device (e.g., phone) be lost or stolen
> > or otherwise inoperative.
>
> Unlikely problem. My apps use a one time SMS 2 Factor Authentication
> code. That is they use the code to certify the device ONCE. After that
> there is only my password required to access a sensitive app on that
> device. If bad guys know my password they can't access my account on a
> non-certified device and if they have access to my certified device they
> don't know my password.
unless they *do* know your password from a data breach...
>
> > unlike sms, totp is not limited to only one device, providing backup
> > sources for codes should one device (e.g., phone) be lost or stolen
> > or otherwise inoperative.
>
> Unlikely problem. My apps use a one time SMS 2 Factor Authentication
> code. That is they use the code to certify the device ONCE. After that
> there is only my password required to access a sensitive app on that
> device. If bad guys know my password they can't access my account on a
> non-certified device and if they have access to my certified device they
> don't know my password.
or vish.
> > unlike sms, nothing is sent over the air, therefore nothing can be
> > intercepted or hijacked,
>
> Since the 2FA SMS code is only sent ONCE per device it's very unlikely
> that bad guys will get it. And even if they do how would they use it?
> The banking SMS code to certify my phone was sent over two years ago...
sent to them, not you, and they're in.
> > making it *much* more secure than sms.
>
> Sometimes too much security is a PITA...
u2f, on the other hand, is a lot more secure, but also a lot more of a
pain. some things require that. most do not.
Carlos E. R.
Nov 13, 2018, 1:10:21 PM11/13/18
to
Ah, they use a VPN, I believe.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages