Jim Thompson might not have to *build* his RoboCaller-defeater

JeffM wrote:

'll.be.asked.to.say.your.name+rss+rss+rss+how.this.gadget.works&#25467451

1) Well, that slashdot site is Browser Hostile; one is forced to use spammy Insipid Enrager. The specs cited are insufficent: "The BBC report on a new gizmo that can block/filter spam phone calls. The system basically intercepts all calls. If it recognizes them as a friend or a member of the user's family - numbers on the so-called star list created by the user - it lets them through as normal. If the caller's number is on a zap list - numbers of telemarketers or other nuisance callers - the device answers it, and all future calls from that number, with an automated message which means the phone does not ring at all. If the system doesn't recognize the caller's number, or the caller withholds their number, it asks them who they are, puts them on hold and then rings the user's phone. The user has the option of taking the call, having the system take a message, or they can reject the call and add the number to the 'zap' list. Users can add callers to their 'star' list by pressing the star button on their phone at any point during a call." In fact, in my case it is almost useless as many SPAM incoming calls have NO phone number and call trace does not work. A blacklist does not work and it potentially would have to store many thousands of numbers (if you can get the b*st*rds number). And for incoming calls that are (illegally) a recording that lasts for awhile, the response that this particular black box is useless and totally non-productive as NO person comes online. Pressing "1" after message gets one to a live operator thar (illegally) REFUSES to identify themselves; most hang up instantly. **** STILL NEED that black box, Jim!

Program it to reject calls that have no number.

Well, the specs givin imply that one MUST give it a number for rejection...