Xref: utzoo comp.org.eff.talk:1337 alt.dcom.telecom:111
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!moxie!sugar!ficc!taronga!peter
From: peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller ID: a modest proposal
Message-ID: <5N01I3A@taronga.hackercorp.com>
Date: 1 Feb 91 02:04:01 GMT
References: <15377@milton.u.washington.edu> <48611@apple.Apple.COM> <10585@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Followup-To: alt.dcom.telecom
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Lines: 24

In article <10585@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden) writes:
> What might make everyone happy is to have two options: per-call blocking,
> and per-phone-blocked-call-blocking.

That's the proposed standard in Europe.

> The latter means that a given line
> will not ring unless Caller ID information is sent first;

Well, not quite. That would block all long-distance calls. You need
per-call blocking and block only calls that are identified as blocked.

> that way you
> can't be harassed by somebody without knowing their number, but services
> which want to guarantee anonymity can leave the lines open.

So would businesses... they can't afford to lose a customer however
prickly.

[ Followups directed to alt.dcom.telecom... ]
-- 
               (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com)
   `-_-'
    'U`