From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Sun Mar 1 16:57:51 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Twayne) Date: Sun Mar 1 17:00:07 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem References: Message-ID: Frog Prince wrote: > "Twayne" wrote in message > news:goc6av$oga$1@news.spamcop.net... >> Frog Prince wrote: >>> "Twayne" wrote in message >>> news:goc30j$ib1$1@news.spamcop.net... >>>> Indigo wrote: >>>>> "Indigo" wrote in message >>>>> news:goa6nl$d6g$1@news.spamcop.net... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe you just registered and downloaded but you didn't actually >>>>>>> pay for the license. >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Just found an interesting piece of info -- I bought (and just >>>>> renewed) the paid version of RegCure, also produced by >>>>> ParentoLogic. I checked, and my license is valid until Jan, 2010. >>>>> So it *shouldn't* be that product that the nag screen is >>>>> complaining about, but I wonder....I downloaded the latest >>>>> version of "ParetoLogic Privacy Controls", which is the disk >>>>> cleaner I initially referred to....and like you mentioned, there >>>>> is no price or license information contained on that page. >>>>> Weird....there are so many variables within the disk cleaner app >>>>> that it might be easier just to deal with the nag screen than to >>>>> go thru all the effort of uninstall/reinstall and trying to >>>>> remember what settings I had for the app.....maybe there's a >>>>> config file somewhere that I can save re-use, I'll take a look. >>>> >>>> Actually, and I mean no disrespect, I try hard to avoid sites that >>>> won't give me a price until I hit the checkout. I might be curious >>>> enough to try the checkout to see what the price is, but I don't >>>> buy, and that's a helluva way to do business IMO. >>>> >>>> >>> I'm a bit bent by the ones that don't give an as shipped price until >>> you have entered all the data including CC. >> >> I don't mind the taxes so much because I can usually mentall estimate >> those; what really gets me though is the S&H when it shows up. Or, >> it used to anyway. If I don't see a filled out invoice by the time >> I have to enter my cc or go to Paypal, I look elsewhere. No one and >> no thing is indispensable, especially when Quality and Service is >> all they have left to distinguish themselves in this world. >> > > If I don;t know the as shipped price before they require CC etc I > drop the deal. I've written to the provider and usually get a 'it's > a programming requirement' or 'every body does it this way'. Yeah, they become black holes pretty quick too if you bother to respond that it doesn't have to be a programming requirement, and everybody does not do it that way. Fortunately I always have plenty of links available for them as samples. You have to be careful though; make sure they didn't already get your address before you do that of ... . Cheers, Twayne From nobody at spamcop.net Sun Mar 1 17:09:38 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (bar0) Date: Sun Mar 1 17:10:09 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem References: Message-ID: "Twayne" wrote in message news:gof0ct$le9$1@news.spamcop.net... ... > Yeah, they become black holes pretty quick too if you bother to respond > that it doesn't have to be a programming requirement, and everybody does > not do it that way. Fortunately I always have plenty of links available > for them as samples. You have to be careful though; make sure they didn't > already get your address before you do that of ... . I don't even talk to them, I shut down the session and route their site to 127.0.0.1, which doesn't have a server. If everyone did that, they'd figure it out soon enough. From loyal at spamcop.user Mon Mar 2 03:04:40 2009 From: loyal at spamcop.user (AndrewB) Date: Mon Mar 2 03:05:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Twayne wrote: > That might work, but IME programs like that somehow keep a "tag" or > something somewhere on the disk that tells them it's already been > installed once. They always seem to know somehow and it's not IP or > 'net related, that much I know. So it has to be somethign stuck > somewhere on the disk. Even after long, detailed registry and disk > searches for anything related to the program and eliminating everything > I could find, they still always knew! I once found something living at > the very extreme end of the hard drive and thought I'd found it, but > nope; that wasn't it. Fortunately I ran out of spare time because it > was beginning to become an obsessive effort, but ... I've never heard of > how it's done. > It's not that it mattered, but it's the covertness of the thing that > bugged me. I still can't imagine how it's done. Even reimaging the > drive one time didn't get rid of it; all it accomplished was losing some > info by the timeframe I chose; so it might be writing to some normally > unwritten to part of the disk. And of course it was still there when I > reminaged back to the last evening's date. A couple random thoughts... Decades ago, I think PCMag had a nice utility (for Windows 3.1!) that would take a snapshot of the files on one's system, *.ini files, and the registry. After the snapshot is generated, one was supposed to install the intended application. When complete (sometimes even after a reboot), you could run the PCMag app and generate a report of what changed on your system. I found it very handy at that time to see what applications were doing, and to debug DOS system file changes (autoexec.bat, config.sys, and the like). Virtual machine technology can assist too, if you do a checkpoint of your system before the install. However, if one actively installs things, this approach can get confusing and tedious. Registry cleaners are not likely to work. Chances are something was hidden in the registry in an obfuscated way. If your reimage didn't help, the installer may have taken details of your computer (say, the amount of memory, the size of the disk, the serial number of the CPU or something like that, perhaps even a pair or triple) and sent that to homebase, which caused the re-install to not work as expected due to the collision between the initial and re-install. AndrewB From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Mon Mar 2 14:44:25 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Twayne) Date: Mon Mar 2 14:45:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem References: Message-ID: AndrewB wrote: > Twayne wrote: > >> That might work, but IME programs like that somehow keep a "tag" or >> something somewhere on the disk that tells them it's already been >> installed once. They always seem to know somehow and it's not IP or >> 'net related, that much I know. So it has to be somethign stuck >> somewhere on the disk. Even after long, detailed registry and disk >> searches for anything related to the program and eliminating >> everything I could find, they still always knew! I once found >> something living at the very extreme end of the hard drive and >> thought I'd found it, but nope; that wasn't it. Fortunately I ran >> out of spare time because it was beginning to become an obsessive >> effort, but ... I've never heard of how it's done. >> It's not that it mattered, but it's the covertness of the thing >> that bugged me. I still can't imagine how it's done. Even >> reimaging the drive one time didn't get rid of it; all it >> accomplished was losing some info by the timeframe I chose; so it >> might be writing to some normally unwritten to part of the disk. And >> of course it was still there when I reminaged back to the last >> evening's date. > > > A couple random thoughts... > > Decades ago, I think PCMag had a nice utility (for Windows 3.1!) that > would take a snapshot of the files on one's system, *.ini files, and > the registry. After the snapshot is generated, one was supposed to > install the intended application. When complete (sometimes even > after a reboot), you could run the PCMag app and generate a report of > what changed on your system. I found it very handy at that time to > see what applications were doing, and to debug DOS system file changes > (autoexec.bat, config.sys, and the like). Yeah, I've thought about those. There are even programs that purport to do that for XP too, but ... have you ever SEEN the amount of registry reads/writes that goes on even when the machine is IDLE? IMO confusing and tedious wouldn't even begin to describe it! It also pointed out the usefulness of such programs. > > Virtual machine technology can assist too, if you do a checkpoint of > your system before the install. However, if one actively installs > things, this approach can get confusing and tedious. That's a thought; IMO the only way to know would be to minotor/catch every installation action during an install. A complete set of reads/writes. I can't think of any before/after comparisons that could work because of the large number of possibilities for such records. > > Registry cleaners are not likely to work. Chances are something was > hidden in the registry in an obfuscated way. Agreed. > > If your reimage didn't help, the installer may have taken details of > your computer (say, the amount of memory, the size of the disk, the > serial number of the CPU or something like that, perhaps even a pair > or triple) and sent that to homebase, which caused the re-install to > not work as expected due to the collision between the initial and > re-install. Maybe but I'm not so sure. I normally hit the power switch for my modem (have a power center) whenever I'm doing housekeeping simply because I don't like programs reporting home that I removed/revised them, etc.. but ... I can see some kind of hidden super-cookie possibly accomplishing that and it's just a place to read during the install; if it exists, it's been installed before. I'd be willing to bet all it is is a bit somewhere, that can be checked. Maybe even hidden within a byte for something else, maybe. I mean, it only has to be one bit, right? Damn, I think my OCD is kicking in again; now I AM curious! lol, thanks a lot! Cheers, Twayne > > > AndrewB From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Mar 2 19:42:48 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Indigo) Date: Mon Mar 2 19:45:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Twayne" wrote in message news:goc2t6$i5v$1@news.spamcop.net... > It's not that it mattered, but it's the covertness of the thing that > bugged me. I still can't imagine how it's done. Even reimaging the > drive one time didn't get rid of it; all it accomplished was losing some > info by the timeframe I chose; so it might be writing to some normally > unwritten to part of the disk. And of course it was still there when I > reminaged back to the last evening's date. That *is* pretty insidious! The method I proposed has worked for me in the past, guess it's worth a try, but I just noticed that I updated to a newer version of the app just a month ago. There's another updated version out there now that I downloaded over the weekend, I'll see how it goes. From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Mar 2 19:49:16 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Indigo) Date: Mon Mar 2 19:50:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Twayne" wrote in message news:goc6av$oga$1@news.spamcop.net... >> I'm a bit bent by the ones that don't give an as shipped price until >> you have entered all the data including CC. > > I don't mind the taxes so much because I can usually mentall estimate > those; what really gets me though is the S&H when it shows up. Or, it > used to anyway. If I don't see a filled out invoice by the time I have to > enter my cc or go to Paypal, I look elsewhere. To both you and FP: I also have a big problem with hiding the shipping & handling costs until you've already handed over CC info. That's one reason I rarely establish accounts at online sellers, I nearly always use the "once and done" payment method -- they are not supposed to save any personal info on you when you purchase something that way, but I suspect that some of them keep your email addy and share it with "affiliates". My s-word load has gone up dramatically over the last few weeks, I *think* I know who leaked it, but I can't prove it -- MCM Electronics. From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Mar 2 19:52:19 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Indigo) Date: Mon Mar 2 19:55:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Frog Prince" wrote in message news:goc7vo$r6a$1@news.spamcop.net... > If I don;t know the as shipped price before they require CC etc I drop the > deal. I've written to the provider and usually get a 'it's a programming > requirement' or 'every body does it this way'. > Yeah, right, what a cop-out. I can't stand it when you find a great deal on something online vs. a brick'n'mortar price but the S&H costs are huge. I bought something recently that had a price tag just barely higher than the S&H charges, which were a whopping $13.95! Pretty much wiped out most of the savings I thought I was getting, down to a couple bucks in fact. From loyal at spamcop.user Tue Mar 3 01:35:16 2009 From: loyal at spamcop.user (AndrewB) Date: Tue Mar 3 01:40:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Twayne wrote: > AndrewB wrote: > >> Decades ago, I think PCMag had a nice utility (for Windows 3.1!) that >> would take a snapshot of the files on one's system, *.ini files, and >> the registry. After the snapshot is generated, one was supposed to >> install the intended application. When complete (sometimes even >> after a reboot), you could run the PCMag app and generate a report of >> what changed on your system. I found it very handy at that time to >> see what applications were doing, and to debug DOS system file changes >> (autoexec.bat, config.sys, and the like). > > Yeah, I've thought about those. There are even programs that purport to > do that for XP too, but ... have you ever SEEN the amount of registry > reads/writes that goes on even when the machine is IDLE? IMO confusing > and tedious wouldn't even begin to describe it! It also pointed out > the usefulness of such programs. Well, multi-tasking operating systems are never really idle. The scheduler is looking for the next thread/process to give some cycles to, your idle screensaver count is going up, the memory manager might be optimizing, paging memory out to disk or defragging memory (not the filesystem, but RAM), and the network stack is analyzing packets on your network to see if they should come in, and probably at least a dozen other things. >> Virtual machine technology can assist too, if you do a checkpoint of >> your system before the install. However, if one actively installs >> things, this approach can get confusing and tedious. > > That's a thought; IMO the only way to know would be to minotor/catch > every installation action during an install. A complete set of > reads/writes. I can't think of any before/after comparisons that could > work because of the large number of possibilities for such records. It can be a bit simpler with a virtual machine manager that lets you checkpoint your guest operating system. Something like: clean guest operating system -> take checkpoint #1 install security software -> take checkpoint #2 install your browser -> take checkpoint #3 install dubious software with license -> take checkpoint #4 install iTunes -> take checkpoint #5 So with the above, you have decent breadcrumbs (although probably not a lot of hard disk space) of what you have. If the dubious software license runs out, go back to checkpoint #3, install iTunes, take Checkpoint #6 (probably delete checkpoint #5 since it has the old dubious software), and move on. >> If your reimage didn't help, the installer may have taken details of >> your computer (say, the amount of memory, the size of the disk, the >> serial number of the CPU or something like that, perhaps even a pair >> or triple) and sent that to homebase, which caused the re-install to >> not work as expected due to the collision between the initial and >> re-install. > > Maybe but I'm not so sure. I normally hit the power switch for my modem > (have a power center) whenever I'm doing housekeeping simply because I > don't like programs reporting home that I removed/revised them, etc.. > but ... I can see some kind of hidden super-cookie possibly > accomplishing that and it's just a place to read during the install; if > it exists, it's been installed before. I'd be willing to bet all it is > is a bit somewhere, that can be checked. Maybe even hidden within a > byte for something else, maybe. I mean, it only has to be one bit, > right? Probably not a bit. Probably less than 1k, hashed, and probably encrypted. If you've ever seen a license key to active software, like what you see on the back of your Windows media, that might alone be 576 bits (36 potential chars * 16 chars), etc. > Damn, I think my OCD is kicking in again; now I AM curious! lol, > thanks a lot! Heh. I could go further, but as a software manager myself, with bills to pay, I need people to pay for commercial software they use. It keeps my kind in work and gives me a budget to hire and pay developers. :) AndrewB From nobody at spamcop.net Tue Mar 3 21:39:21 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Indigo) Date: Tue Mar 3 21:40:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Free online Tax forms -- are they safe? Message-ID: I established free fed tax return accounts at the IRS recommended website https://www.freefilefillableforms.com/FFA/FreeFileForms.htm , and also one at TaxCut, which I bought last year: https://taxes.hrblock.com/hrblock/Login/LoginRegistration.hrbx?&taxtype=TCF&TaxYear=2008&FV=F&HT=F The state of MD also has a free online tax app, and all 3 services offer free e-files too. Since I have minimal info to enter this year, I don't feel like shelling out for the full fledged TaxCut premium software, but I am a tad concerned over the safety of all of these online apps. Has anyone heard any bad reviews/comments about these apps, and are there any safety concerns I should worry about? The way I see it, e-filing with a free app isn't any more dangerous than e-filing with a paid program. But then there *is* the issue of all of your personal data floating out there in the ether waiting for someone to grab it, either by intercepting it or by hacking the database. All I've done so far is to establish my accounts, I haven't started entering any data yet, I wanted a chance to ping this NG for opinions first before going any further. From nobody at spamcop.net Tue Mar 3 22:15:34 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (bar0) Date: Tue Mar 3 22:20:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: Free online Tax forms -- are they safe? References: Message-ID: "Indigo" wrote in message news:gokpkp$k44$1@news.spamcop.net... >I established free fed tax return accounts at the IRS recommended website >https://www.freefilefillableforms.com/FFA/FreeFileForms.htm , > > and also one at TaxCut, which I bought last year: > > https://taxes.hrblock.com/hrblock/Login/LoginRegistration.hrbx?&taxtype=TCF&TaxYear=2008&FV=F&HT=F > > The state of MD also has a free online tax app, and all 3 services offer > free e-files too. Since I have minimal info to enter this year, I don't > feel like shelling out for the full fledged TaxCut premium software, but I > am a tad concerned over the safety of all of these online apps. > > Has anyone heard any bad reviews/comments about these apps, and are there > any safety concerns I should worry about? The way I see it, e-filing with > a free app isn't any more dangerous than e-filing with a paid program. But > then there *is* the issue of all of your personal data floating out there > in the ether waiting for someone to grab it, either by intercepting it or > by hacking the database. > > All I've done so far is to establish my accounts, I haven't started > entering any data yet, I wanted a chance to ping this NG for opinions > first before going any further. I don't know anything about any of these applications, but the IRS web site (www.irs.gov) serves up editable PDF's of all the tax forms. I wouldn't get them anywhere else. I also would never fill out tax forms online unless I actually knew the brick and mortar accountancy I was dealing with. This is not to say these folks aren;t completely above board, but going to a >"IRS recommended website https://www.freefilefillableforms.com/FFA/FreeFileForms.htm" has a real bad smell to me. Where does IRS recommend them? I didn't know they made commercial recommendations. From nobody at spamcop.net Tue Mar 3 22:30:32 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Indigo) Date: Tue Mar 3 22:35:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: Free online Tax forms -- are they safe? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "bar0" wrote in message news:gokros$pqd$1@news.spamcop.net... I also would never fill out tax forms online unless I > actually knew the brick and mortar accountancy I was dealing with. One of the reasons I'm likely to use H&R Block's free Taxcut if I decide to file that way. This is > not to say these folks aren;t completely above board, but going to a > >"IRS recommended website > https://www.freefilefillableforms.com/FFA/FreeFileForms.htm" has a real > bad smell to me. Where does IRS recommend them? See: http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=118986,00.html From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Wed Mar 4 11:39:26 2009 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Twayne) Date: Wed Mar 4 11:40:07 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem References: Message-ID: AndrewB wrote: > Twayne wrote: >> AndrewB wrote: >> ... > > Heh. I could go further, but as a software manager myself, with bills > to pay, I need people to pay for commercial software they use. It > keeps my kind in work and gives me a budget to hire and pay > developers. :) And rightfully so. If I use it, I pay for it; everyone should. Cheers, Twayne > > > AndrewB From user at domain.invalid Wed Mar 4 13:08:02 2009 From: user at domain.invalid (Farelf) Date: Wed Mar 4 13:10:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49AEC382.5080507@domain.invalid> Indigo wrote: > ...a nag screen saying "payup or discontinue use". I've clicked > "discontinue" multiple times and tried to create some inbound/outbound > firewall rules to prevent them from sending me the nag screen or from > know whether I've removed the software or not, but with no success. Well, you could try helpdesk@paretologic.com - I've found them completely useless but they must do something right, sometime, even if by mistake. Certainly RegCure is unlikely to fix the problem, though that would be a symmetrical sort of solution if it would - it couldn't even find, on successive scans & reboots, the 'orphan' registry data that was preventing print spooler from starting, this being the dreaded 'error 1068' which prevents setting up any further printer drivers. (Deleting the left-over data from a sloppy Lexus un-install in DependOnService under HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Spooler did the trick - the exact sort of thing RegCure is supposed to find and fix). I don't mind that but ParetoLogic support's insistence, in the face of all the facts, that it simply couldn't have been a registry problem if it wasn't fixed by RC is downright irksome. Yeah, and their marketing strategies are indistinguishable from outright shysterism in the eyes of this casual observer. But don't write off the helpdesk without trying it. From me at privacy.net Wed Mar 4 17:42:35 2009 From: me at privacy.net (anon) Date: Wed Mar 4 17:45:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] stop annoying phone calls Message-ID: I once read about a certain phone key to push to tell the calling computer that this number is 'out of service' to keep the computer from dialing this number again. Anyone remember which key? I thought it was the * or # or was it something else? How many times to press? From me at privacy.net Wed Mar 4 19:29:17 2009 From: me at privacy.net (Frog Prince) Date: Wed Mar 4 19:45:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls References: Message-ID: "anon" wrote in message news:gon04u$fc6$1@news.spamcop.net... :I once read about a certain phone key to push to tell the calling computer : that this number is 'out of service' to keep the computer from dialing this : number again. : : Anyone remember which key? : : I thought it was the * or # or was it something else? How many times to : press? It's a tone intersept sequenc. I don't have the specks but it quite recongnizable. Way back when (before the DNC list you could buy on at radio shack or on line) : : From Ag2000CO at Starband.net Wed Mar 4 20:25:34 2009 From: Ag2000CO at Starband.net (LKing) Date: Wed Mar 4 20:30:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: anon wrote, On 3/4/2009 5:42 PM: > I once read about a certain phone key to push to tell the calling > computer that this number is 'out of service' to keep the computer from > dialing this number again. > > Anyone remember which key? > > I thought it was the * or # or was it something else? How many times to > press? > > Good question. In the last 2-3 weeks I have been getting, and reporting, calls from "Card Services" offering reduced interest rate and "Warranty Services" car warranty scam. There does seem to be flood lately, 2 calls a week is more than I ever got before the DNC. The also call mid day to get older stay at home types, I guess. Lou From nobody at spamcop.net Wed Mar 4 21:10:54 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Indigo) Date: Wed Mar 4 21:15:09 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem In-Reply-To: <49AEC382.5080507@domain.invalid> References: <49AEC382.5080507@domain.invalid> Message-ID: "Farelf" wrote in message news:49AEC382.5080507@domain.invalid... > Indigo wrote: > >> ...a nag screen saying "payup or discontinue use". I've clicked >> "discontinue" multiple times and tried to create some inbound/outbound >> firewall rules to prevent them from sending me the nag screen or from >> know whether I've removed the software or not, but with no success. > > Well, you could try helpdesk@paretologic.com - I've found them completely > useless but they must do something right, sometime, even if by mistake. Well, I completely blew it. Even though I got the daily nag screen, the disk cleaning app still worked. So I downloaded the latest version from ParentoLogic, un-installed the old version, wiped the disk clean with EasyCleaner and the registry with RegCure, then installed the new version of Privacy Controls. It ran, but wouldn't finish the job like the old app did -- I had to pay for a new license ($19.95) to get it to work. I guess I got the license for free when I originally purchased RegCure, like some kind of package deal special they were running at the time, because I couldn't find any email that was only connected to a Privacy Controls purchase. And even then, there was something screwy with the new version -- although the un-install *did* leave my old config file on my HD, which made me happy, there was something in the temp windows file scrubbing section that totally locked up the app, multiple times. I eventually gave up trying to figger out what was causing the issue, but I highly suspect it had something to do with the recycle bin -- opening the recycle bin via the normal desktop icon showed about 10 files, but Privacy Controls found a bunch of other "hidden" system files, I could tell by the filenames. So I rebooted and now everything is working fine again, and blazingly faster than the old version. Guess that's one reason to have an app like this, all those hidden system files that theoretically get deleted when you uninstall a program actually appear to get stuck in the recycle bin, undetectable to the naked eye. From dfmanno at mail.com Wed Mar 4 22:19:30 2009 From: dfmanno at mail.com (D.F. Manno) Date: Wed Mar 4 22:20:07 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls References: Message-ID: In article , "Frog Prince" wrote: > "anon" wrote: > > :I once read about a certain phone key to push to tell the calling computer > : that this number is 'out of service' to keep the computer from dialing this > : number again. > : > : Anyone remember which key? > : > : I thought it was the * or # or was it something else? How many times to > : press? > > It's a tone intersept sequenc. I don't have the specks but it quite > recongnizable. Way back when (before the DNC list you could buy on at radio > shack or on line) I have a .wav file of those tones. I'll e-mail it to anyone who asks. -- D.F. Manno dfmanno@mail.com From user at domain.invalid Wed Mar 4 22:48:35 2009 From: user at domain.invalid (Farelf) Date: Wed Mar 4 22:50:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem In-Reply-To: References: <49AEC382.5080507@domain.invalid> Message-ID: Indigo wrote: > > ... there was something in the temp windows file scrubbing > section that totally locked up the app, multiple times. I eventually > gave up trying to figger out what was causing the issue, but I highly > suspect it had something to do with the recycle bin -- opening the > recycle bin via the normal desktop icon showed about 10 files, but > Privacy Controls found a bunch of other "hidden" system files, I could > tell by the filenames. So I rebooted and now everything is working fine > again, and blazingly faster than the old version. Guess that's one > reason to have an app like this, all those hidden system files that > theoretically get deleted when you uninstall a program actually appear > to get stuck in the recycle bin, undetectable to the naked eye. Useful observations and conjecture. Glad you are getting good functionality out of RC, that's what you paid for. And in their latest response ParentoLogic helpdesk admitted to 'modest' success in clearing up print spooler issues, so that is honest at least (in contrast to the excessive fanboi or 'associate' claims that infest the internet). Just as a favorable though incidental indicator of corporate propriety to balance my previous curmudgeonliness (pause to educate spellchecker). RC seems to come with a default twice a week scan and fix (Mon & Thu at 3-something AM which might bear some relationship to when my - or, properly, SWMBO's - installation was activated). I disabled that auto action. I haven't checked Vista, but in XP the recycle bin can be set to show hidden files and folders (depending on access permissions, I suppose) and seems to use the same, current, 'all folders' settings as Win Explorer by default. [O/T] Hmm... (XP) there's only a heap of stuff in there from OE which I've hardly used anyway - can only be resulting from OE's compact/compress actions, being a separate topic elsewhere in these groups. Big files for little use on a new machine.[/O/T] I haven't downloaded or activated the ParetoLogic bundled privacy program and don't think I will now, if it is going to leave mysterious hooks of its own. I don't use Outlook and I make minimal use of IE7 so there's probably not much in the "really hidden Windows files" files anyway. And nothing to cause alarm, despondency, embarrassment or concern in any event (I even bore myself). From me at privacy.net Wed Mar 4 23:04:59 2009 From: me at privacy.net (anon) Date: Wed Mar 4 23:05:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls References: Message-ID: "Frog Prince" wrote in message news:gon78j$j4$1@news.spamcop.net... > > "anon" wrote in message > news:gon04u$fc6$1@news.spamcop.net... > :I once read about a certain phone key to push to tell the calling > computer > : that this number is 'out of service' to keep the computer from dialing > this > : number again. > : > : Anyone remember which key? > : > : I thought it was the * or # or was it something else? How many times to > : press? > > It's a tone intersept sequenc. I don't have the specks but it quite > recongnizable. Way back when (before the DNC list you could buy on at > radio > shack or on line) > : What I remembered was that as soon as I answered the call, I would hit a key on the phone pad - no outside tone necessary. > : > > From me at privacy.net Wed Mar 4 23:06:21 2009 From: me at privacy.net (anon) Date: Wed Mar 4 23:10:07 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls References:

Message-ID: "D.F. Manno" wrote in message news:dfmanno-327891.22193004032009@news.cesmail.net... > In article , > "Frog Prince" wrote: > >> "anon" wrote: >> >> :I once read about a certain phone key to push to tell the calling >> computer >> : that this number is 'out of service' to keep the computer from dialing >> this >> : number again. >> : >> : Anyone remember which key? >> : >> : I thought it was the * or # or was it something else? How many times to >> : press? >> >> It's a tone intersept sequenc. I don't have the specks but it quite >> recongnizable. Way back when (before the DNC list you could buy on at >> radio >> shack or on line) > > I have a .wav file of those tones. I'll e-mail it to anyone who asks. > How would I use the tone -- make a recording of it and then play it back when I get the bad call? > -- > D.F. Manno > dfmanno@mail.com From me at privacy.net Wed Mar 4 23:10:49 2009 From: me at privacy.net (anon) Date: Wed Mar 4 23:15:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls References: Message-ID: "LKing" wrote in message news:gon9ms$4al$1@news.spamcop.net... > anon wrote, On 3/4/2009 5:42 PM: >> I once read about a certain phone key to push to tell the calling >> computer that this number is 'out of service' to keep the computer from >> dialing this number again. >> >> Anyone remember which key? >> >> I thought it was the * or # or was it something else? How many times to >> press? >> >> > Good question. In the last 2-3 weeks I have been getting, and reporting, > calls from "Card Services" offering reduced interest rate and "Warranty > Services" car warranty scam. > > There does seem to be flood lately, 2 calls a week is more than I ever got > before the DNC. The also call mid day to get older stay at home types, I > guess. > > Lou These (******'s) are calling from out of state (I'm in CA.) I called phone co, FCC, etc. The only thing they cold suggest was to gat caller ID or have the phone co put a tap on my line and call them when I got a call. Both are too much trouble and/or expense for the good guy to exert to get the bad guy. From Ag2000CO at Starband.net Thu Mar 5 00:28:31 2009 From: Ag2000CO at Starband.net (LKing) Date: Thu Mar 5 00:30:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: anon wrote, On 3/4/2009 11:10 PM: > > Both are too much trouble and/or expense for the good guy to exert to > get the bad guy. > True story. What I find really scary is that they find enough suckers to pay the bills. The calls actually made the local news here in the D.C. area. From avoozl at spamcop.net Thu Mar 5 03:07:13 2009 From: avoozl at spamcop.net (Chris F. Willoughby) Date: Thu Mar 5 03:10:09 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls References: Message-ID: Too bad I hear a lot of the caller ID numbers are faked on those calls as well. Chris "LKing" wrote in message news:gonnuc$gnf$1@news.spamcop.net... > anon wrote, On 3/4/2009 11:10 PM: >> >> Both are too much trouble and/or expense for the good guy to exert to get >> the bad guy. >> > True story. What I find really scary is that they find enough suckers to > pay the bills. The calls actually made the local news here in the D.C. > area. From DLipman~nospam~ at Verizon.Net Thu Mar 5 06:55:36 2009 From: DLipman~nospam~ at Verizon.Net (David H. Lipman) Date: Thu Mar 5 07:00:09 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls References: Message-ID: From: "Chris F. Willoughby" | Too bad I hear a lot of the caller ID numbers are faked on those calls as | well. | Chris Yes. I have gotten a bunch using area code; 062 -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp From nobody at spamcop.net Thu Mar 5 07:44:53 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (bar0) Date: Thu Mar 5 07:45:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls References: Message-ID: "David H. Lipman" wrote in message news:gooejo$7a0$1@news.spamcop.net... > From: "Chris F. Willoughby" > > | Too bad I hear a lot of the caller ID numbers are faked on those calls > as > | well. > > | Chris > > Yes. I have gotten a bunch using area code; 062 Probably a real code, but it's a country code, not area code. From me at privacy.net Thu Mar 5 16:48:35 2009 From: me at privacy.net (anon) Date: Thu Mar 5 16:50:09 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: task scheduler problem References: Message-ID: "David H. Lipman" wrote in message news:go7fss$ao0$1@news.spamcop.net... > From: "anon" > > > > | "anon" wrote in message > | news:gnn1r3$dgg$1@news.spamcop.net... > > >>> "David H. Lipman" wrote in message >>> news:gnl4em$8ta$1@news.spamcop.net... >>>> From: "anon" > >>>> | I posted this over a month ago, no response. > >>>> | Trying under different subject. > >>>> | When updating the task scheduler I get the following error - I am >>>> logged in >>>> | as administrator. > >>>> | Obviously task won't run > >>>> | How to fix > >>>> | --error message-- >>>> | "LiveUpdate.job" (LiveUpdate.lnk) 1/23/2009 11:13:29 AM ** ERROR ** >>>> | The attempt to retrieve account information for the specified task >>>> failed; >>>> | therefore, the task did not run. Either an error occurred, or no >>>> account >>>> | information existed for the task. >>>> | The specific error is: >>>> 0x8004130f:: No account information could be found in the Task >>>> Scheduler >>>> | security database for the task indicated. > > > >>>> Did you apply a local account and password to the JOB (it doesn't >>>> inherit >>>> your >>>> credentials) ? > > >>> None was requested - so did not supply any. > > > | Any other suggestions????? > > > Did you apply and account and password with the minimum level of > privileges ? > I am logged in as owner/with administrator privileges. I don't understand what I cannot do as admin. Why the error messages? > > -- > Dave > http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html > Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp > > From kenbrody at spamcop.net Fri Mar 6 14:08:30 2009 From: kenbrody at spamcop.net (Kenneth Brody) Date: Fri Mar 6 14:10:09 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: bar0 wrote: > "David H. Lipman" wrote in message > news:gooejo$7a0$1@news.spamcop.net... >> From: "Chris F. Willoughby" >> >> | Too bad I hear a lot of the caller ID numbers are faked on those calls >> as >> | well. >> >> | Chris >> >> Yes. I have gotten a bunch using area code; 062 > > Probably a real code, but it's a country code, not area code. I bet there's no such number as "000-000-0000" or "999-999-9999" as I have seen come by on my caller ID. (Though I, too, have seen "062" for the area code.) Is there any legitimate reason for the hardware which lets you generate fake caller ID information? There are also plenty of sites online where you can enter the caller ID information and see who else has been receiving (and reporting) such calls. The one I usually use is . -- Kenneth Brody From kenbrody at spamcop.net Fri Mar 6 14:11:03 2009 From: kenbrody at spamcop.net (Kenneth Brody) Date: Fri Mar 6 14:15:07 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: task scheduler problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: anon wrote: [...] > > I am logged in as owner/with administrator privileges. > > I don't understand what I cannot do as admin. > > Why the error messages? I missed the beginning of this thread. Are you on XP or Vista? Under Vista, even the admin account doesn't have full privileges unless you use "run as administrator" to start the program (or the program explicitly requests Vista to raise its privileges). And, unless you've turned off UAC, you'll get that "are you sure you want to do this" prompt. -- Kenneth Brody From dfmanno at mail.com Fri Mar 6 14:12:40 2009 From: dfmanno at mail.com (D.F. Manno) Date: Fri Mar 6 14:15:07 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls References:

Message-ID: In article , "anon" wrote: > D.F. Manno wrote: > > "Frog Prince" wrote: > >> "anon" wrote: > >> > >> : I once read about a certain phone key to push to tell the > >> : calling computer that this number is 'out of service' to keep > >> : the computer from dialing this number again. > >> : > >> : Anyone remember which key? > >> : > >> : I thought it was the * or # or was it something else? How many > >> : times to press? > >> > >> It's a tone intersept sequenc. I don't have the specks but it > >> quite recongnizable. Way back when (before the DNC list you could > >> buy on at radio shack or on line) > > > > I have a .wav file of those tones. I'll e-mail it to anyone who > > asks. > > How would I use the tone -- make a recording of it and then play it > back when I get the bad call? I believe the idea is that you record an answering machine message that starts with the tones, and from then on screen your calls. Then, if a machine calls, it hears the tones and marks your number as disconnected. The tones will mean nothing to a human caller. I don't know if it's true that a machine dialer will respond to the tones as described; that's just the claim that I've read. -- D.F. Manno dfmanno@mail.com From nobody at spamcop.net Fri Mar 6 20:09:05 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (bar0) Date: Fri Mar 6 20:10:07 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls References:

Message-ID: "D.F. Manno" wrote in message news:dfmanno-090CD0.14124006032009@news.cesmail.net... > In article , "anon" > wrote: > >> D.F. Manno wrote: >> > "Frog Prince" wrote: >> >> "anon" wrote: >> >> >> >> ,,,, > > I don't know if it's true that a machine dialer will respond to the > tones as described; that's just the claim that I've read. Is it the "doodle-dah" from a disconnected or unavailable line or network? I can't imagine a phone spammer would care, after all, someone who wants to talk with the spammer will eventually acquire the line. From nobody at spamcop.net Fri Mar 6 21:31:22 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Indigo) Date: Fri Mar 6 21:35:09 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem In-Reply-To: References: <49AEC382.5080507@domain.invalid> Message-ID: "Farelf" wrote in message news:goni2f$49q$1@news.spamcop.net... > > I haven't checked Vista, but in XP the recycle bin can be set to show > hidden files and folders (depending on access permissions, I suppose) I have my Vista recycle bin setup to show hidden and system files.....still those mystery files are found in there by PC and by no other app I have. From nobody at spamcop.net Fri Mar 6 21:38:46 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Indigo) Date: Fri Mar 6 21:40:07 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: task scheduler problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "anon" wrote in message news:gophbl$pg0$1@news.spamcop.net... > > I am logged in as owner/with administrator privileges. > > I don't understand what I cannot do as admin. > > Why the error messages? This happens to me when I install an app that needs to write to the c:/program data/microsoft/windows subdirectory. I get an error message from the installer saying it can't write the file, so I have to run a "take ownership" app on that directory, then click "retry", then it works. The big PITA is that every time an app wants to create a new subdirectory under c:/program data/microsoft/windows I have to run the "take ownership" app before proceeding. From me at privacy.net Fri Mar 6 21:55:54 2009 From: me at privacy.net (Frog Prince) Date: Fri Mar 6 22:00:09 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls References: Message-ID: "Kenneth Brody" wrote in message news:gorsbg$7h9$1@news.spamcop.net... : bar0 wrote: : > "David H. Lipman" wrote in message : > news:gooejo$7a0$1@news.spamcop.net... : >> From: "Chris F. Willoughby" : >> : >> | Too bad I hear a lot of the caller ID numbers are faked on those calls : >> as : >> | well. : >> : >> | Chris : >> : >> Yes. I have gotten a bunch using area code; 062 : > : > Probably a real code, but it's a country code, not area code. : : I bet there's no such number as "000-000-0000" or "999-999-9999" as I have : seen come by on my caller ID. (Though I, too, have seen "062" for the area : code.) : : Is there any legitimate reason for the hardware which lets you generate fake : caller ID information? : : There are also plenty of sites online where you can enter the caller ID : information and see who else has been receiving (and reporting) such calls. : : The one I usually use is . : I simply punch in the 10 digit number to a search engine and get a lot of usually duplicate returns. X-No-Archive: Yes � 2008 all rights reserved; no portion of this post may be used anywhere else or archived without written permission From me at privacy.net Fri Mar 6 21:56:11 2009 From: me at privacy.net (Frog Prince) Date: Fri Mar 6 22:00:09 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls References: Message-ID: "David H. Lipman" wrote in message news:gooejo$7a0$1@news.spamcop.net... : From: "Chris F. Willoughby" : : | Too bad I hear a lot of the caller ID numbers are faked on those calls as : | well. : : | Chris : : Yes. I have gotten a bunch using area code; 062 : It's a trivial to spoof a Caller ID. There is even an 800 # (cost the caller 10 cents per min) From user at domain.invalid Sat Mar 7 00:17:23 2009 From: user at domain.invalid (Farelf) Date: Sat Mar 7 00:20:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem In-Reply-To: References: <49AEC382.5080507@domain.invalid> Message-ID: Indigo wrote: > I have my Vista recycle bin setup to show hidden and system > files.....still those mystery files are found in there by PC and by no > other app I have. Interesting - the search engine phrase "really hidden files" in combination with 'windows' or 'microsoft' turns up all sorts of information, mostly about XP, I think. I first became (mildly) intrigued about these while watching SUPERAntiSpyware running a full scan, an activity I can accordingly recommend as being marginally superior to watching grass grow or paint drying. No surprise, I suppose, if Vista has the same/similar hidden panoramas to reveal, to any mastering the interface. Nice of M$ to set such challenges before us (and so to remind mere 'owners' of their proper place at the base of the pyramid) and woe betide any nefarious users of Windows coming up against the investigative forensics arrayed against them. But tough on us paranoiacs. I guess Privacy Control has its merits/uses. Here at Cygnis Insignis (Western Australia) we had a certain very senior Government bureaucrat or two who might have eked out their well-remunerated careers a little longer had evidence of their prevarications been truly as deleted as they believed (deletion itself being illegal anyway). IIUC their undoing was in certain of the the 'really hidden' files though detail is hard to find. Maybe it is all a myth/precautionary tale but recovered e-mails or parts thereof were apparently a real enough component of it, there being few other explanations and perhaps none more probable to explain the detail retrieved. It all feels a little like 'conspiracy theory' but I couldn't discount the apparent evidence at this stage. Obviously I'm at some inconvenient intermediate level of paranoia (or just laziness, belike). But I'm glad you started this thread. From loyal at spamcop.user Sat Mar 7 02:33:51 2009 From: loyal at spamcop.user (AndrewB) Date: Sat Mar 7 02:35:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: LKing wrote: > Good question. In the last 2-3 weeks I have been getting, and reporting, > calls from "Card Services" offering reduced interest rate and "Warranty > Services" car warranty scam. The car warranty people were calling me. One weekend day I was home, so I thought I'd play with them. I talked to an agent, gave them the specs of my 2000 car, and they told me that they couldn't warranty it. "But that's not what your message said. It said that my warranty was going to expire soon!". She then pulled something up, quoted me an outrageous rate to only protect the transmission and axle. I hemmed and hawed, told her I thought it was expensive. I asked who the warranty was underwritten by. Eventually talked to a supervisor. He got the agent back on line, and by then, I just hit the mute key on my handset and let her go on talking. They never did disconnect, however, she did go away. After a couple hours the battery handset died and the call ended. Ironically, I've never heard from them again. > There does seem to be flood lately, 2 calls a week is more than I ever > got before the DNC. The also call mid day to get older stay at home > types, I guess. If you are on the do-not-call list, the calls are illegal, except for the political ones. I believe the legislation that makes the other calls illegal makes political ones legal as well as calls from businesses with whom you have relationships with (banks, insurance, credit cards, Netflix, Blockbuster, etc) AndrewB From loyal at spamcop.user Sat Mar 7 02:39:12 2009 From: loyal at spamcop.user (AndrewB) Date: Sat Mar 7 02:40:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Kenneth Brody wrote: > > I bet there's no such number as "000-000-0000" or "999-999-9999" as I > have seen come by on my caller ID. (Though I, too, have seen "062" for > the area code.) > > Is there any legitimate reason for the hardware which lets you generate > fake caller ID information? Sure. Medium to large companies don't have a 1:1 outgoing line ratio to desk phones. Usually they have a ratio to keep costs reasonable. So when you make a call out, say on circuit 345, the company's phone hardware/software can change the outgoing caller-id to your desk phone line. After you hang up, and the person three floors up calls home and re-uses your circuit 345, his caller-id gets assigned to the line. I think there is some VOIP equipment that lets you tweak the caller-id. Some phone companies might have a "* feature" where if you have a digital handset, you can hit the *{num}{num} sequence and might get the last caller's number on your handset. And maybe a small charge. Look in the front of your phone book. AndrewB From not at home.today Sat Mar 7 09:24:03 2009 From: not at home.today (Ant) Date: Sat Mar 7 09:25:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem References: <49AEC382.5080507@domain.invalid> Message-ID: "Indigo" wrote: > "Farelf" wrote: >> I haven't checked Vista, but in XP the recycle bin can be set to show >> hidden files and folders (depending on access permissions, I suppose) You won't see the full picture with the Explorer GUI. Use the command prompt: c: (or another drive letter) cd \recycler (or whatever the recycle-bin is called) dir /a /s > I have my Vista recycle bin setup to show hidden and system files.....still > those mystery files are found in there by PC and by no other app I have. I can't speak for Vista but it's probably similar to XP. The recycle- bin directory contains subdirectories for each user starting with something like S-1-5-21-... In those directories are at least two files: "desktop.ini" and "INFO2". The ini file controls how the GUI displays and operates the folder view in Explorer. The INFO2 file contains information about any deleted files including their original name and location. Any other files/folders will be the actual deleted objects but not with their original name. If you see other files not visible in the Explorer recycle-bin view they can be deleted from the command prompt. It's also possible that the INFO2 data has become corrupt and contains information about files that aren't really there. If none of the above helps to reveal anything then there could be a driver (or rootkit if malware is suspected) in control of what is visible. From Ag2000CO at Starband.net Sat Mar 7 09:55:50 2009 From: Ag2000CO at Starband.net (LKing) Date: Sat Mar 7 10:00:09 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: AndrewB wrote, On 3/7/2009 2:33 AM: > LKing wrote: > >> There does seem to be flood lately, 2 calls a week is more than I ever >> got before the DNC. The also call mid day to get older stay at home >> types, I guess. > > If you are on the do-not-call list, the calls are illegal, except for > the political ones. I believe the legislation that makes the other > calls illegal makes political ones legal as well as calls from > businesses with whom you have relationships with (banks, insurance, > credit cards, Netflix, Blockbuster, etc) > > > AndrewB In addition to excluding the politicians that wrote the law, there is also an exclusion for non-profits. You know the ones, 'We are going to have a truck in your neighborhood Thursday ...' Yes I am on the do-not-call (DNC) list, and every time I get a call I fill out the form at https://www.donotcall.gov/ IIRC that is used to see how effective the list is, not develop a legal case, but I do it anyway. Lou From me at privacy.net Sun Mar 8 19:53:28 2009 From: me at privacy.net (anon) Date: Sun Mar 8 19:55:09 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls References: Message-ID: "Kenneth Brody" wrote in message news:gorsbg$7h9$1@news.spamcop.net... > bar0 wrote: >> "David H. Lipman" wrote in message >> news:gooejo$7a0$1@news.spamcop.net... >>> From: "Chris F. Willoughby" >>> >>> | Too bad I hear a lot of the caller ID numbers are faked on those calls >>> as >>> | well. >>> >>> | Chris >>> >>> Yes. I have gotten a bunch using area code; 062 >> >> Probably a real code, but it's a country code, not area code. > > I bet there's no such number as "000-000-0000" or "999-999-9999" as I have > seen come by on my caller ID. (Though I, too, have seen "062" for the > area code.) > > Is there any legitimate reason for the hardware which lets you generate > fake caller ID information? > > There are also plenty of sites online where you can enter the caller ID > information and see who else has been receiving (and reporting) such > calls. > > The one I usually use is . Out of curiosity, I went to that web page. It DID NOT tell me anything about the several numbers I entered - It ASKED for information about the numbers. > > -- > Kenneth Brody From me at privacy.net Sun Mar 8 20:01:33 2009 From: me at privacy.net (anon) Date: Sun Mar 8 20:05:07 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls References: Message-ID: "AndrewB" wrote in message news:got80u$v59$1@news.spamcop.net... > LKing wrote: > >> Good question. In the last 2-3 weeks I have been getting, and reporting, >> calls from "Card Services" offering reduced interest rate and "Warranty >> Services" car warranty scam. > > The car warranty people were calling me. One weekend day I was home, so I > thought I'd play with them. I talked to an agent, gave them the specs of > my 2000 car, and they told me that they couldn't warranty it. "But that's > not what your message said. It said that my warranty was going to expire > soon!". She then pulled something up, quoted me an outrageous rate to > only protect the transmission and axle. I hemmed and hawed, told her I > thought it was expensive. I asked who the warranty was underwritten by. > Eventually talked to a supervisor. He got the agent back on line, and by > then, I just hit the mute key on my handset and let her go on talking. > They never did disconnect, however, she did go away. After a couple hours > the battery handset died and the call ended. > > Ironically, I've never heard from them again. > > >> There does seem to be flood lately, 2 calls a week is more than I ever >> got before the DNC. The also call mid day to get older stay at home >> types, I guess. > > If you are on the do-not-call list, the calls are illegal, except for the > political ones. I believe the legislation that makes the other calls > illegal makes political ones legal as well as calls from businesses with > whom you have relationships with (banks, insurance, credit cards, Netflix, > Blockbuster, etc) > > You are correct, the calls are illegal and the FCC will prosecute. All you have to do is furnish the calling phone number, time and date and the name of the person you talked to. Catch -you have to find out the calling number. Once upon a time, I asked for the calling number and was given one. I had the authorities call it and there was no such number - wasn't THAT a surprise? > AndrewB From me at privacy.net Sun Mar 8 20:08:34 2009 From: me at privacy.net (anon) Date: Sun Mar 8 20:10:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls References: Message-ID: "LKing" wrote in message news:gou1tr$erl$1@news.spamcop.net... > AndrewB wrote, On 3/7/2009 2:33 AM: >> LKing wrote: >> >>> There does seem to be flood lately, 2 calls a week is more than I ever >>> got before the DNC. The also call mid day to get older stay at home >>> types, I guess. >> >> If you are on the do-not-call list, the calls are illegal, except for the >> political ones. I believe the legislation that makes the other calls >> illegal makes political ones legal as well as calls from businesses with >> whom you have relationships with (banks, insurance, credit cards, >> Netflix, Blockbuster, etc) >> >> >> AndrewB > In addition to excluding the politicians that wrote the law, there is also > an exclusion for non-profits. You know the ones, 'We are going to have a > truck in your neighborhood Thursday ...' > > Yes I am on the do-not-call (DNC) list, and every time I get a call I fill > out the form at https://www.donotcall.gov/ IIRC that is used to see how > effective the list is, not develop a legal case, but I do it anyway. > Yes, that is fine - if you know what number called you. I do not have caller Id - more expense. Good guys pay, bad guys get away with anything. > Lou From Ag2000CO at Starband.net Sun Mar 8 23:40:19 2009 From: Ag2000CO at Starband.net (LKing) Date: Sun Mar 8 23:45:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: anon wrote, On 3/8/2009 8:08 PM: > > > "LKing" wrote in message > news:gou1tr$erl$1@news.spamcop.net... >> AndrewB wrote, On 3/7/2009 2:33 AM: >>> LKing wrote: >>> >>>> There does seem to be flood lately, 2 calls a week is more than I >>>> ever got before the DNC. The also call mid day to get older stay at >>>> home types, I guess. >>> >>> If you are on the do-not-call list, the calls are illegal, except for >>> the political ones. I believe the legislation that makes the other >>> calls illegal makes political ones legal as well as calls from >>> businesses with whom you have relationships with (banks, insurance, >>> credit cards, Netflix, Blockbuster, etc) >>> >>> >>> AndrewB >> In addition to excluding the politicians that wrote the law, there is >> also an exclusion for non-profits. You know the ones, 'We are going to >> have a truck in your neighborhood Thursday ...' >> >> Yes I am on the do-not-call (DNC) list, and every time I get a call I >> fill out the form at https://www.donotcall.gov/ IIRC that is used to >> see how effective the list is, not develop a legal case, but I do it >> anyway. >> > > Yes, that is fine - if you know what number called you. > OR the name of the company calling. I don't caller ID either. Lou From Ag2000CO at Starband.net Sun Mar 8 23:47:34 2009 From: Ag2000CO at Starband.net (LKing) Date: Sun Mar 8 23:50:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: anon wrote, On 3/8/2009 8:01 PM: > > > "AndrewB" wrote in message > news:got80u$v59$1@news.spamcop.net... >> LKing wrote: >> >>> Good question. In the last 2-3 weeks I have been getting, and >>> reporting, calls from "Card Services" offering reduced interest rate >>> and "Warranty Services" car warranty scam. >> >> The car warranty people were calling me. One weekend day I was home, >> so I thought I'd play with them. I talked to an agent, gave them the >> specs of my 2000 car, and they told me that they couldn't warranty >> it. "But that's not what your message said. It said that my warranty >> was going to expire soon!". She then pulled something up, quoted me >> an outrageous rate to only protect the transmission and axle. I >> hemmed and hawed, told her I thought it was expensive. I asked who >> the warranty was underwritten by. Eventually talked to a supervisor. >> He got the agent back on line, and by then, I just hit the mute key on >> my handset and let her go on talking. They never did disconnect, >> however, she did go away. After a couple hours the battery handset >> died and the call ended. >> >> Ironically, I've never heard from them again. >> >> >>> There does seem to be flood lately, 2 calls a week is more than I >>> ever got before the DNC. The also call mid day to get older stay at >>> home types, I guess. >> >> If you are on the do-not-call list, the calls are illegal, except for >> the political ones. I believe the legislation that makes the other >> calls illegal makes political ones legal as well as calls from >> businesses with whom you have relationships with (banks, insurance, >> credit cards, Netflix, Blockbuster, etc) >> >> > > You are correct, the calls are illegal and the FCC will prosecute. > > All you have to do is furnish the calling phone number, time and date > and the name of the person you talked to. > > Catch -you have to find out the calling number. > if you check https://www.donotcall.gov/ --> File a Complaint you will see that: "1. To file a complaint now, your phone number must have been on the registry for 31 days. 2. To file a complaint, we need the date you got the call, and either the name or telephone number of the company that called you." Note name OR phone number. Lou From me at privacy.net Mon Mar 9 18:03:02 2009 From: me at privacy.net (anon) Date: Mon Mar 9 18:05:09 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: task scheduler problem References: Message-ID: "Indigo" wrote in message news:gosmnm$aca$1@news.spamcop.net... > > "anon" wrote in message > news:gophbl$pg0$1@news.spamcop.net... >> >> I am logged in as owner/with administrator privileges. >> >> I don't understand what I cannot do as admin. >> >> Why the error messages? > > This happens to me when I install an app that needs to write to the > c:/program data/microsoft/windows subdirectory. I get an error message > from the installer saying it can't write the file, so I have to run a > "take ownership" app on that directory, then click "retry", then it works. > The big PITA is that every time an app wants to create a new subdirectory > under c:/program data/microsoft/windows I have to run the "take ownership" > app before proceeding. Explain in detail how I 'take ownership'? What app do I run? As you say, this sounds like a PITA, but I guess I will have to live with it. From me at privacy.net Mon Mar 9 18:05:22 2009 From: me at privacy.net (anon) Date: Mon Mar 9 18:10:07 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: task scheduler problem References: Message-ID: "Kenneth Brody" wrote in message news:gorsg9$7h9$2@news.spamcop.net... > anon wrote: > [...] >> >> I am logged in as owner/with administrator privileges. >> >> I don't understand what I cannot do as admin. >> >> Why the error messages? > > I missed the beginning of this thread. Are you on XP or Vista? > > Under Vista, even the admin account doesn't have full privileges unless > you use "run as administrator" to start the program (or the program > explicitly requests Vista to raise its privileges). And, unless you've > turned off UAC, you'll get that "are you sure you want to do this" prompt. > > -- > Kenneth Brody On XP. I'm still confused as to why, with admin priv., I still can't do things?? From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Mar 9 20:33:23 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Indigo) Date: Mon Mar 9 20:35:09 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem In-Reply-To: References: <49AEC382.5080507@domain.invalid> Message-ID: "Farelf" wrote in message news:got013$uur$1@news.spamcop.net... > > Here at Cygnis Insignis (Western Australia) we had a certain very senior > Government bureaucrat or two who might have eked out their > well-remunerated careers a little longer had evidence of their > prevarications been truly as deleted as they believed (deletion itself > being illegal anyway). IIUC their undoing was in certain of the the > 'really hidden' files though detail is hard to find. Maybe it is all a > myth/precautionary tale but recovered e-mails or parts thereof were > apparently a real enough component of it, there being few other > explanations and perhaps none more probable to explain the detail > retrieved. One of the options PC has is to delete email from the "deleted email" mailbox, and it also has a "shredder" option for deletion (of any file) that will overwrite the old HD data multiple times. That's pretty damn strong protection against snoopers, IMO. From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Mar 9 20:35:04 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Indigo) Date: Mon Mar 9 20:35:09 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem In-Reply-To: References: <49AEC382.5080507@domain.invalid> Message-ID: "Ant" wrote in message news:gou02q$995$1@news.spamcop.net... > I can't speak for Vista but it's probably similar to XP. The recycle- > bin directory contains subdirectories for each user starting with > something like S-1-5-21-... Yes, that type of subdirectory is exactly what I was talking about when I said "hidden files". From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Mar 9 20:38:32 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Indigo) Date: Mon Mar 9 20:40:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: task scheduler problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "anon" wrote in message news:gp43mq$qqb$1@news.spamcop.net... > > Explain in detail how I 'take ownership'? What app do I run? See: http://www.technobeta.com/posts/add-take-ownership-option-to-the-windows-vista-context-menu/ From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Mar 9 20:40:59 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Indigo) Date: Mon Mar 9 20:45:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: task scheduler problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "anon" wrote in message news:gp43r6$rb5$1@news.spamcop.net... > > On XP. I'm still confused as to why, with admin priv., I still can't do > things?? I wish I knew the answer to that for Vista too....I know that the Data Execution Provention (DEP) program that comes with Vista (not XP, AFAIK) interferes frequently while I'm installing new apps. From nobody at spamcop.net Tue Mar 10 01:13:52 2009 From: nobody at spamcop.net (RW) Date: Tue Mar 10 01:15:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: stop annoying phone calls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: AndrewB wrote: > calls illegal makes political ones legal as well as calls from > businesses with whom you have relationships with (banks, insurance, > credit cards, Netflix, Blockbuster, etc) Hate to say it, but since you asked for a quote, they now have a business relationship with you and are free to call. Whether they will or not is another story. Nothing stopping them from keeping the lead and hitting you with other pitches though. Richard From user at domain.invalid Tue Mar 10 02:50:16 2009 From: user at domain.invalid (Farelf) Date: Tue Mar 10 02:55:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: ParentoLogic Nag Screen problem In-Reply-To: References: <49AEC382.5080507@domain.invalid> Message-ID: Indigo wrote: > > "Farelf" wrote in message > news:got013$uur$1@news.spamcop.net... >> >> Here at Cygnis Insignis (Western Australia) we had a certain very >> senior Government bureaucrat or two who might have eked out their >> well-remunerated careers a little longer had evidence of their >> prevarications been truly as deleted as they believed (deletion itself >> being illegal anyway). IIUC their undoing was in certain of the the >> 'really hidden' files though detail is hard to find. Maybe it is all >> a myth/precautionary tale but recovered e-mails or parts thereof were >> apparently a real enough component of it, there being few other >> explanations and perhaps none more probable to explain the detail >> retrieved. > > One of the options PC has is to delete email from the "deleted email" > mailbox, and it also has a "shredder" option for deletion (of any file) > that will overwrite the old HD data multiple times. That's pretty damn > strong protection against snoopers, IMO. Sssshh ... we don't those 'civil servants' finding out about this (there again, it would ultimately put them jail, so ...). But thanks - if I dispose of anything with a functional HDD I need to know this stuff. From me at privacy.net Tue Mar 10 20:20:27 2009 From: me at privacy.net (anon) Date: Tue Mar 10 20:25:08 2009 Subject: [Scgeeks] Re: task scheduler problem References: Message-ID: