Spam number block requests post here

Fusion Voice service, features and help.
2698 posts Page 239 of 270
by george_byrd » Wed Jun 30, 2021 12:32 pm
From REDWOOD CITY CA at 650-503-8853 on Wed Jun 30 09:48:48 2021

"Hello. This is Susan. This is about your ability to receive compensation for past zantac usage. ..."

Block 650-503-8853.

Thanks.
by george_byrd » Sun Jul 04, 2021 2:19 pm
Robospam:

Bogus caller ID: From CITIBANKONLINE at 800-374-9700 on Sun Jul 4 14:06:15 2021

About a non-existent "city card".

"... if you did not authorize this transaction please press one to speak with city card specialists for dispute..."

Please block 800-374-9700 and the actual numbers behind the bogus caller ID.

Thanks.
by virtualmike » Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:54 pm
Since that number really belongs to Citibank, how will Citibank actually contact customers if the number is blocked?
by nowired » Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:44 am
Please block 650-960-7472. Robocall saying our auto warranty expired. Thank you.
by george_byrd » Mon Jul 05, 2021 12:08 pm
virtualmike wrote:Since that number really belongs to Citibank, how will Citibank actually contact customers if the number is blocked?
I don't know to whom you are asking the question. I am not a current expert about it. But I will tell you what I think is the case. I may be very wrong. But I believe I am correct to some reasonable degree.

First: Virtually all bogus caller ID numbers used by spammers actually belong to somebody. Often it is some random person's home phone number. Sometimes it is an unused number owned by some telephone operating company. Sometimes it is a major corporation's switchboard number, as in this case.

Sonic is a telephone operating company. Operating companies have access to more caller number identification information than phone subscribers do. They use what once was called ANI (Automatic Number Identification) to pass billing information between operating companies.

Every long distance call passes ANI information from one operating company carrier to the next, so the operating companies can bill the phone call properly.

The ANI information cannot be changed by a telephone subscriber. But the Caller ID can be changed by a subscriber.

When an operating company "blocks" a Caller ID number, they actually block the true originating number behind the bogus Caller ID, based on the ANI information that is available to the operating company.

So, if Citibank actually calls a Sonic telephone subscriber, and Citibank uses its own actual phone number for Caller ID, they will not be blocked.

That's my inexpert and approximate understanding. Perhaps some Sonic expert personnel will post here a more correct description of how their caller blocking works.
by ccd02_presidio » Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:15 pm
3175152586

Spam/Prank caller Calls multiple times per day. Woman asks why we called her or why we are mad at her or just hangs up and immediately calls back and asks the same question and then hangs up again.
by virtualmike » Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:31 pm
george_byrd wrote:
virtualmike wrote:Since that number really belongs to Citibank, how will Citibank actually contact customers if the number is blocked?
So, if Citibank actually calls a Sonic telephone subscriber, and Citibank uses its own actual phone number for Caller ID, they will not be blocked.

That's my inexpert and approximate understanding. Perhaps some Sonic expert personnel will post here a more correct description of how their caller blocking works.
You're correct that ANI indicates the billing number, but it's not sent for every call, and even when it is sent, there are many legitimate reasons why the billing number may be different than the number for caller ID.

As an example, many large corporations get all of their landline activity billed under one main number (which may not be the number in the phone directory). The number shown for caller ID may be the actual phone within the corporation that made the call, while the ANI number would still be the corporation's billed number.

Blocking of a calling number is based on the caller ID number, not the ANI.

Unfortunately, the development of these protocols way back didn't consider that one day, people with ISDN and VOIP would be able to set any number for the caller ID. It's just like the way that the email protocols never considered that someone would use a bogus sender's address. Let's hope that SHAKEN/STIR rises up to the challenge.
by george_byrd » Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:49 pm
virtualmike wrote:
george_byrd wrote:
virtualmike wrote:Let's hope that SHAKEN/STIR rises up to the challenge.
As I said, my understanding is outdated by decades. What little I know of SHAKEN/STIR is that spam call blocking requires some degree of human sleuthing by carriers to determine which IP or IP block to refuse (or block) based on one or more spam calls.

I am generally satisfied that Sonic does a good job of it.

I am generally disappointed that the state and federal DOJs have taken no real initiative to locate and prosecute the perpetrators. Even foreign actors can still be indicted, prosecuted in absentia, and arrested if they set foot on US territory or on another nation with extradition treaties.

DOJ has successfully done that to other foreign perpetrators in the past. Historically, even a DNA sequence has been indicted. As has been observed before, any prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if he really wants to.

The DOJ could also prosecute the robospammer stateside co-conspirators, down to the lowest level.

They could indict every co-conspirator with millions of counts of fraud, based on the numbers of robocalls made by their bosses.

But DOJ has done none of that. Instead, they throw up their hands and say "we can't do anything about it because it's too difficult to prosecute, so we'll lean on the private sector carriers to prevent it."

Since this forum is primarily for reporting robospam calls to block, I prefer not to comment here further about technical or legal solutions to robospam calls. That is for other Sonic forums. That said, you have enlightened me about the evolution of the technical issues with blocking robospam.
by robbie » Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:14 pm
Robocall: Suzy calling to "extend auto warranty."

Please block 858-285-2769

Thanks.
by george_byrd » Fri Jul 16, 2021 3:37 pm
Robospam from PALO ALTO CA at 650-327-2403 on Fri Jul 16 15:23:30 2021.

"... your eligibility for rate reduction is about to expire..."

Please block 650-327-2403.
2698 posts Page 239 of 270

Who is online

In total there are 18 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 18 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 999 on Mon May 10, 2021 1:02 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests