communicator.clickatell.com is not a site which sends sms from a fake orignator…
because i am using it’s services… and i tried hard to do so but i failed

if someone knows about it …. do tell me… then i’ll believe ….

take care

The article “Beware! Fake SMSes Can Ruin You” unfairly positions Clickatell as a purveyor of fake text messages. Clickatell is the world’s first global messaging provider and is trusted for mobile message delivery in over 180 countries.

What happened to the recipient of the “fake SMS” is most unfortunate and a clear indication of mischievous conduct by a fellow employee or someone who knows the recipient. If indeed it was Clickatell’s platform that was used to deliver this unlawful message we are very willing to track down the culprit as they have contravened our terms and conditions and our anti-spam policy; see Terms and Conditions, http://www.clickatell.com/brochure/terms.php.

The reality is that this type of ‘spoofing”, (general term used to describe this type of activity), can be done on any email platform, printed letter or with a phone call. Should we ‘shut down’ all Internet service providers and prevent people form having their own printers? It is clearly not appropriate to blame the technology or technology companies, but the people who abuse it.

As one who respects veracity in journalism, and not being a purveyor of sensationalism, we would request you allow us the opportunity be interviewed by your journalists to advise your readership around SMS best practices and to set the record straight and inform them of the numerous factors to consider in regards to ‘safe messaging’. SMS has made a very positive contribution to societies around the world including being used for life saving instant alert notification in times of emergency.

Please contact our US Public Relations representative, Austin Edgington, at austin.edgington@clickatell.com to arrange an interview.

Hmm. Bomb hoax by text? That’s a new one on me. As for reception in a shopping centre, I find it flakey at best – so by the time I get back in coverage and the networks SMSC has delivered the text I’d be outside anyway.

Agree with what Ewan says though, being able to set the originator has many very legitimate business uses. All the while O2 etc chose not to support it will mean it’s their loss on a large amount of ‘proper’ commercial traffic.

As for *why* Csoft doesn’t support it — I don’t know!

Your point about regulation is well made. But it’s next to useless when SMS aggregator companies make you tick a box on registration then don’t bother looking to see what you’re doing with the connection.

I’m encouraged by the actions of RedSMS (detailed in the 160chrs link you posted) — I’m pleased to see that someone’s watching what’s going on via their networks.

I’m surprised you’ve not mentioned the regulation regarding SMS marketing especially in the UK and US? In fact in the US, commercial SMS is contractually bound to originate from a shortcode. (not that this is a good thing). In the UK SMS sending is subject to rafts of regulation.

Additionally I was interested to read that the SMS company you mention has had it’s share of problems:

http://www.160characters.org/news.php?action=view&nid=2054

However the reaction that this scam evoked is testament to the fact that whilst commercial SMS, as with other communication mediums, will always have those that try to abuse it, these abuses will not be tolerated and *WILL* be found near immediately.

Presumably you’re aware of how easy it is to ‘spoof’ emails, and even phone calls?

Incidentally I bet the reason said company doesn’t offer originator capabilities is because it can’t. The chances are they route via a network that itself doesn’t offer the dynamic originator changes – O2 UK for instance. It’s in fact quite amazing that they don’t offer a capability that is inherently useful (as you yourself have mentioned) and entirely necessary for many applications.

Here’s hoping you paint less one sided pictures going forward!