|
Last week there was some discussion about telemarketers on this board. I thought I would share an example of a telemarketer talking to my server[^]. The two "kids" and the "old man (father)" are my server talking. The "woman" is a robocall.
So this is their computer talking to my computer.
I built this system almost 7 years ago. It detects telemarketers and has a "conversation" with them to waste their time. The calls are recorded, transcoded to mp3, and emailed to me to laugh at later. It even sends a DTMF "1" after the first round, as most telemarketers say "press 1 to be connected to a real person." It has a near 100% success rate. This has been so entertaining over the years that I am considering removing my phone numbers from the "do not call" list and even adding "honeypot" DID's to my PBX.
|
|
|
|
|
When are you going to open source the code? More people should be doing this!
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
I will, just so many projects and so little time...
I'm glad you liked it.
|
|
|
|
|
Just you wait until your server starts ordering upgrades this way.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, it does a LOT more than just this.
There are a few telemarketers who REALLY piss me off. The ones who keep calling, literally hundreds of times.
For those, I track down the company responsible (manual detective work), and I find the phone number of their company. The real phone number. Then I have my server REDIRECT the telemarketer to their own number.
I have a rule table of those telemarketers and their related parent numbers. So, when they call me, they hear their OWN MAIN SWITCHBOARD answer. I cannot describe how satisfying this is.
And my PBX is still in the loop recording the hilarity. That is usually all it takes to get them to permanently remove me from their call list, although I had one company continue for 6 months.
I have fallen down from laughing so hard...
|
|
|
|
|
This is evil. Evil and right. I admire you. 
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page." -- Mike Hankey
|
|
|
|
|
You know, it's the little things in life...
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome. Just awesome. 
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, I used to get 1 call every 2-3 months, an indian gentleman from MS wanting me to download some software to fix the problems on my machine. After a couple of sessions of long detailed discussions on achieving well... nothing they eventually gave up.
I can't remember the last time I got a telemarketer on the land line.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Did they ever figure out you were running a linux VM while on the phone with them? 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
...but this is strangely good[^], the more you listen the more right it seems.
|
|
|
|
|
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Arggghhhh! Noooooooo....
I'll never be able to listen to the original again without hearing "you durty old man"
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
 so wrong but good!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
No matter how my team-members code, my code should work fine 
|
|
|
|
|
Getting the client to pay first.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Make no assumptions (about system state or inputs)
|
|
|
|
|
I always assume the system is going to give me the wrong data at some point. Whether it's a garbage value to a null one, always assume it's going to be wrong at some point.
|
|
|
|
|
"Defensive programming is a form of defensive design intended to ensure the continuing function of a piece of software under unforeseen circumstances. The idea can be viewed as reducing or eliminating the prospect of Finagle's law having effect" [^]
IMO, this goes with design by contract[^] programming. (pre and post conditions)
In short, you make your own code fool proof according to the design and architecture (and contract) of the existing code.
BAD EXAMPLE BELOW ... DO NOT USED... I keep it there just because I suck this morning.
As a (very simplified example) (in c-ish language)
If the design (contract) say that p can be invalid, then you need to handle that case.
void f ( SomeClass* p )
{
p->doSomething();
}
will crash is p is invalid.
defensive programming will have something like:
void f ( SomeClass* p )
{
if (p)
p->doSomething();
}
or
void f ( SomeClass* p )
{
if ( invalid(p))
{
assert_and_log_message("invalid p in function f");
return;
}
p->doSomething();
}
In both case, your own code will not crash.
I'd rather be phishing!
modified 3-Nov-15 8:48am.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like a great way to introduce bugs. Now the caller has absolutely no idea that the argument was invalid, and that the method didn't actually do what they were expecting it to do, and will continue to execute despite the system being in an invalid state.
Throwing an exception when given invalid input would be the ideal, but even crashing would be better than just doing nothing! 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Well you are right
My example was poorly designed.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, props to you for just striking out your code instead of deleting it. I think it is fantastic when people are humble (and self-confident) enough to let others learn from their mistakes. (Especially because I'm sure I might have made the same one!)
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's probably very simple which probably already do...
it's when you write some public method you don't just assume that the parameter will be kind of alright, but you cater for inappropriate input, such as null, large integer (causing overflow) etc, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
Always validate your parameters and assume your user is an absolute moron. Then set up logging and early reporting messages back to you so that when they call you up all frantic you already have the problem solved. 
It's how Scotty does it... "Aye Cap'n"
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
