Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!ames!lll-winken!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension Message-ID: Date: 20 Mar 89 20:17:27 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Reply-To: Leslie Mikesell Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix Lines: 14 Approved: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 99, message 4 of 7 In article levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) writes: >CPID service with caller suppressible ID and an answering machine >seems like the ideal combination. I don't have to tell you my phone >number if I don't want to and you don't have to answer my call (live >or at all) if you don't want to. I hope it will be possible to tell the difference between someone who intentionally suppreses the ID and someone who doesn't have the new equipment. Why would anyone answer a call if you know the caller didn't want you to be able to call back? Les Mikesell