Let the unknown number ring out

Mostly no, and the people here argue the detail. Seven separate conversations say not answering unknown numbers beats anything you can say once you have answered, because the call-centre software marks a picked-up line as valid — and, one account says, sells it on; three more say decline and block; one account describes one answered call turning into five to ten a day. The argument is what to do instead: in one conversation, three accounts to four, the people here split between never answering and answering then muting immediately, which two corrections say can flag the line as dead to the dialler — against one caution that silence has been logged as consent to buy. Across these conversations, four accounts in four say answering makes it worse, and three in three say a pickup alone tells the caller little and the satisfaction of disrupting them is worth it. Whether any of it works on the newer automated diallers is a gap in these conversations. The accounts’ own decider is the software the caller is using, which you cannot see. So: let it ring, let voicemail earn its keep, and block the number afterwards knowing, as one account says, that the next call comes from a different one. Three accounts say they no longer get a human at all, only recordings and silence, in which case nothing you say reaches anyone.

Six words, then wait for them to finish. One correction, and an objection with three accounts behind it including a former telemarketer, say the words that trigger a removal are put me on your do-not-call list — spoken plainly, and one high-rated caution says stay on the line until the agent has read out the confirmation, because hanging up before the disclaimer is finished resets it. One account says telling a seller you do not qualify for the product logs a status that stops that company; another says a polite not interested works on legitimate sellers, who generally do remove you, and one objection says pushy ones do not take it. Now the phrase that does not work: four exchanges in four conversations run the “sorry, wrong number” tactic one or two accounts against two or three; two land on it fails and two on it depends who is calling, and the three corrections say why it fails: it tells the caller a live person answers, and one account was called for fifteen years saying it; one political call centre’s worker says their scripts do mark it, which is the exception the accounts allow. One correction says agents usually cannot remove numbers themselves and will not take the hit to their call metrics to try, so the phrase works by obliging the company, not the person. The tricks are the rest of these conversations — pretending to be a business, a law office, a minor, a corpse, a speaker of another language, or simply wasting the caller’s hour — and this page teaches none of them: they are lies, the accounts’ own corrections say they mostly fail or bring the call back, one objection says baiting the person on the line does them harm, and one is illegal. Some accounts enjoy the game; one correction says talking back tells the system a real person is present.

Yes and no, and the US regulator says so itself. Three separate conversations say the registry did not stop their calls, particularly from scammers and overseas operations that ignore it, and one correction from former telemarketers says the list is often ignored, market research is exempt, and companies update their own suppression lists only after formal complaints; one caution says charity fundraisers are exempt, and one objection says they can turn rude when told. Two conversations say it is still the thing that stops legitimate companies, because they can be fined — if you report the violation, one caution says, since nothing happens automatically. Across two conversations on one side and two on the other, two accounts to three, the people here call it useful and useless; the accounts’ own decider is who is calling — a real company that follows the law, or a spoofed number from nowhere. The US Federal Trade Commission’s own page, this page’s own line, agrees with both: the registry is designed to stop unwanted sales calls from real companies that follow the law; it does not block calls and will not stop scammers making illegal calls; political, charity, debt-collection, informational and survey calls are still allowed; registration is free at its website or by phone from the line you want covered, and it can take up to 31 days for sales calls to stop. Other countries run their own opt-out registers through their telecoms or data regulators; this page could not reach the UK’s today and prints nothing about it — search your regulator’s name and the words nuisance calls.

More than you can, the accounts say, because a machine is dialling you. Two separate conversations use a phone maker’s built-in call screening that filters unknown numbers before the phone rings at all; single accounts use the setting that silences unknown callers outright, a carrier service that requires a button press to connect, a robocall-filtering service, or a second number from a free service for every form and sign-up so the real number stays quiet. Caller-ID apps that label known scam numbers exist, and one caution says they let some through; one high-rated caution says at least one popular app has harvested users’ contact lists and exposed private numbers to the very people it was meant to stop, so read what an app takes before you install it. Blocking one number rarely helps, several accounts say, because the next call comes from another, often faked to look local or even to look like your own; two cautions say do not call a spoofed number back, because you reach a stranger whose number was borrowed. Which settings exist on which phones, and how to file a complaint step by step, are gaps in these conversations.

Then it is a different problem and the safety line above comes first: if the debt is real, stalling can cost you a default. What the accounts add is about conduct rather than escape. Two conversations describe a US law that limits how collectors may contact you and forbids them discussing your debt with your family or workplace; one account says a letter citing the law and stating you intend to hire a lawyer is legal, and one correction says impersonating a lawyer is not. One correction says the lawyers who take these cases work on contingency, not for free, because, that account says, a well-documented case is winnable; one conversation says a cease-and-desist letter is not a court order, a caution and an objection say it needs careful wording, and one says send it by registered mail so there is a record. One caution says collectors do not always honour the first request to stop calling and that a manager may be needed. One account says calling the agency back reaches whichever operator is free, not the person who rang you. And one contraindication is the whole of it: if you owe the money and intend to keep your record clean, none of this replaces dealing with the debt.