Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: peter%ficc@uunet.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Caller-ID and Blocking Message-ID: Date: 13 Nov 89 18:55:21 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 20 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 509, message 6 of 13 I hope that this doesn't set too much of a precedent. As much as I like Caller-ID, it should be possible to block it on any call. At that point the recipient can decide not to accept such anonymous calls. Unblockable Caller-ID is, on the balance, a bad development. I wish some of the people out there would campaign to fix it, rather than tear it down. Sigh. `-_-' Peter da Silva . 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" -- Quentin Johnson quent@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu [Moderator's Note: But therein lies the rub. As much as you like it, you wish they'd give you an escape hatch, to prevent other people from 'enjoying' it as much as yourself! :) In the few places where it is now installed and a part of life, there seem to be very few or no exceptions to the non-blocking rule. I've come to the conclusion that voluntary blocking along with the ability to send unidentified calls to treatment would be a good compromise. PT]