Fake or just weird?
-
This "1+" phone prefix looks awfully suspicious to me. But then, it's America, and they do weird shit all the time, like having those CDMA phones that don't work anywhere else in the world.
-
@gąska maybe a bot spam, if you answer it'll throw you cheesy ads
-
Well, at the very least, it's not a toll free number. I'd prolly go with just weird.
-
There's a dozen of these sites: https://ifaketextmessage.com/
-
@bb36e I know there's dozens of sites to make fake messages. My question is, is it at all possible that the picture in OP is NOT fake.
-
@gąska Doesn't look obviously fake.
1
is a reasonable prefix for a North American number, and the non-numeric pattern afterwards seems possible. No idea if anyone ever puts+
in there like that, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did sometimes.
-
@dkf said in Fake or just weird?:
@gąska Doesn't look obviously fake.
1
is a reasonable prefix for a North American number, and the non-numeric pattern afterwards seems possible. No idea if anyone ever puts+
in there like that, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did sometimes.Certain phones do that if you create contacts from the call log (ie "call me so I can add you").
-
@dkf isn't it normally
+1
though and not1+
?
-
@gąska I thought you had received that message. Nevermind, what are your cheese recommendations?
-
-
@dkf usually when I have to send my number to someone in another country I need to prepend a '54+' to my number.
-
@gąska recharge your motherfucking battery man.
wtf.
-
@jarry
The plus should still be before the "54", because it stands for the "international call" prefix code, which is "00" in most, but not all countries.To answer the OP: Yes, the screenshot is most definitely fake.
-
Barring bugs in the messaging app, this is a fake. Given the rest of the displayed number, this is obviously meant to be in E.164 format.
The spec doesn't mention the
+
character anywhere in the text either. Now, the whole thing with the+
character preceding the E.164 formatted number is not a part of the standard. Many telcos still require the00
notation before any international calls, which can also be replaced with a+
in most cases. You don't ever see a+
anywhere but as the very first character, if that.
Filed under: I wrangle phone pixies for a living
-
@onyx
Does the telco ever actually see the+
? I thought it was replaced with the appropriate prefix for the current country (00
, or011
for North Americans) client-side.
-
@asdf said in Fake or just weird?:
@onyx
Does the telco ever actually see the+
? I thought it was replaced with the appropriate prefix for the current country (00
, or011
for North Americans) client-side.Depends on their setup. Usually they give me the spec and I have to do all the converting before forwarding the call to them. I worked with a certain that required an additional
0
for any call (so national calls were00<area code><SN>
and international were000<area code><SN>
) a few times. Most of them will either accept a full E.164 with both and without an appropriate number of preceding0
s.I don't know how they handle a
+
since I never actually tried forwarding that to their systems, but I also never got it as a part of the caller ID apart from when I messed with some GSM gateways which will happily send me E.164 format numbers prefixed with a+
. Whether that's something the gateway does, or it's the mobile network doing that I can't be sure, since there's always some blackbox hardware in the way that could be messing with it. Also, GSM doesn't use SIP, so that might actually be a part of the protocol I'm not familiar with. They still conform to the E.164 spec outside of that.Landline operators (where I can take a look at the raw SIP headers at any point) don't seem to do that, at least in my neck of the woods.
Again, it's all just strings (SIP is very comparable to HTTP, it has pretty much the same structure, and some response codes match as well), so you could, theoretically, do anything you please, but it seems that most telcos don't bother.
-
@wharrgarbl said in Fake or just weird?:
I thought you had received that message. Nevermind, what are your cheese recommendations?
Parmigiano Reggiano, the undisputed king of cheese! </mario-batali>
-
@onyx fun fact: in Poland, most carriers prepend +48 to caller ID in national calls, which means that some idiotic phones that do primitive number matching might not detect that your contact is calling if you don't have +48 saved. For example, my beloved Nokia Lumia we've received at my last workplace. It was funny when they switched our operator to Plus, which is AFAIK the only one that doesn't put +48 in caller ID - because global corporation, the numbers in Exchange contacts absolutely had to include this prefix, so the result is no one knew who was calling them anymore.
-
@onyx said in Fake or just weird?:
Given the rest of the displayed number, this is obviously meant to be in E.164 format.
Whoa! Phone numbers have actual standards and stuff? I always assumed everyone kinda made their own rules up as they went.
Filed under: only partially sarcasm
-
@onyx said in Fake or just weird?:
The spec doesn't mention the + character anywhere in the text either.
How could it? Doesn't the spec pre-date computers? Normal phones don't have a
+
on the keyboard.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if
+
was invented for GSM because the source circuit is not always known.I'm also pretty sure that in the distant past, dialling a local number as national, or a national as international, would lead to a higher bill.
-
@pleegwat said in Fake or just weird?:
I wouldn't be surprised if + was invented for GSM because the source circuit is not always known.
That actually makes a lot of sense.