I recently have had a couple of 'no number' phone calls. My response was
to try *69 and *59 which calls back to show their number, but they seem to
have got around this by referring the call to another dumb phone.

You are on a hiding to nothing as its a continual war between those who scam
and those who wish to stop them.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"jon_t" <me@home.uk> wrote in message news:u3009m$1plv0$1@dont-email.me...
>
> I recently have had a couple of 'no number' phone calls. My response was
> to try *69 and *59 which calls back to show their number, but they seem to
> have got around this by referring the call to another dumb phone.

On 04/05/2023 11:09, jon_t wrote:
>
> I recently have had a couple of 'no number' phone calls. My response was
> to try *69 and *59 which calls back to show their number, but they seem to
> have got around this by referring the call to another dumb phone.

IME most scam calls are placed using VoIP services that are not attached
to, or related to, any physical phone line. They can present any CLI
that they like. Often that is used to present a number belonging to the
organisation they are pretending to be be, but equally it might just be
a random number they have wither made up, or "borrowed" from some other
unsuspecting subscriber.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 04/05/2023 11:09, jon_t wrote:
>
> I recently have had a couple of 'no number' phone calls. My response was
> to try *69 and *59 which calls back to show their number, but they seem to
> have got around this by referring the call to another dumb phone.

I am getting the odd call where the caller says "I am returning your
call" when I haven't called them. I assume therefore that some scroat
is making some sort of marketing/scam/spam using my mobile number so
when you use *69 you are simply be calling the poor soul whose number
has been spoofed.

Dave

On Thu, 4 May 2023 10:09:58 -0000 (UTC), jon_t <me@home.uk> wrote:
>
>I recently have had a couple of 'no number' phone calls. My response was
>to try *69 and *59 which calls back to show their number, but they seem to
>have got around this by referring the call to another dumb phone.
Can you explain what you mean by 'no number'? I have caller ID on my
landline and there's either a number, or 'international'. If I don't
recognise the number or it's not for my area I don't answer. If it
says 'number withheld' it's often my doctor.
I've not heard of your *69 and *59 - would they give me more
information? What is the difference between them? Are you talking
about your landline or your mobile?
--
Dave W

On Fri, 05 May 2023 08:55:14 +1000, Dave W <davewi11@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 4 May 2023 10:09:58 -0000 (UTC), jon_t <me@home.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> I recently have had a couple of 'no number' phone calls. My response was
>> to try *69 and *59 which calls back to show their number, but they seem
>> to
>> have got around this by referring the call to another dumb phone.

> Can you explain what you mean by 'no number'?

There is no number presented. You can turn the caller ID off
on any call you make so the called party never gets any number.

> I have caller ID on my
> landline and there's either a number, or 'international'. If I don't
> recognise the number or it's not for my area I don't answer. If it
> says 'number withheld' it's often my doctor.

> I've not heard of your *69 and *59 - would they give me more
> information? What is the difference between them? Are you talking
> about your landline or your mobile?

On 5/4/2023 6:55 PM, Dave W wrote:

>
> I've not heard of your *69 and *59 - would they give me more
> information? What is the difference between them? Are you talking
> about your landline or your mobile?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last-call_return

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_service_code

*57 1157 Call trace (Malicious caller identification)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_caller_identification

records meta-data for police follow-up.
A police report must be filed after each use

Making that feature useless, in all but the most dire circumstance.

Paul

Paul wrote:

> Dave W wrote:
>
>> I've not heard of your *69 and *59
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last-call_return

That may be implemented on us/canada exchanges using e.g. 5ESS switches,
but I've never heard of those star codes on british AXE10 switches,
where's dennis@home when he might be useful?

On 5/5/2023 1:56 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
>> Dave W wrote:
>>
>>> I've not heard of your *69 and *59
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last-call_return
>
> That may be implemented on us/canada exchanges using e.g. 5ESS switches, but I've never heard of those star codes on british AXE10 switches, where's dennis@home when he might be useful?
>
When I read the article, I hadn't realized that
the feature had traveled the world a bit (with
different numeric codes).

Sometimes, phone system features take a long time
to roll out.

When number portability became law here, I was denied
number portability for ten years. There were five other
cities with the same technical limitation.

It's possible the switches had the feature in the
datafill, but nobody could turn it on until it was
available nationwide.

Paul

On 04/05/2023 11:09, jon_t wrote:
>
> I recently have had a couple of 'no number' phone calls. My response was
> to try *69 and *59 which calls back to show their number, but they seem to
> have got around this by referring the call to another dumb phone.

I had three calls from 0845 602 1111. I missed the
first two but picked up the phone when the 3rd was
ringing and line went dead for 10 seconds and then
gave the continuous tone of line disconnected.

AFAIK this is how BT sends texts to landlines, so
why didn't it just squark out the message ?. I am
not going to pay BT to ring this number just to hear
some nonsense.