JNOS message question
Jeff Camp
problem. When a user sends a message to another local user, the system
responds with a "Msg queued" message, but the message is never delivered.
If I log in as Sysop, I can't see any messages. If I look in the
/spool/mqueue I can see all the messages sitting there.
Anyone have any suggestions on where to start?
Thanks,
Jeff
N0WJP
Bob Nielsen
I haven't run JNOS in several years, but you might try the
following--as sysop, issue the command 'smtp list' and you should see
the list of messages. 'smtp kick' should try to run the queue. At
that point 'tcp status' should give a hint of what is/isn't happening.
Bob, N7XY
charlesb
"Jeff Camp" <jca...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:VSmkb.16356$iq3.13665@okepread01...
1. Toss "JNOS" into the bit-bucket.
Get an old 386 or 486, install DOS and FBB BBS. This combination will be
more reliable and trouble-free than the LINUX/JNOS combo. It requires less
than 20% of the setup time that your present system does, have a better
human interface, and in a general sense it will just plain work better. Part
of the reason for this is that the author of FBB BBS is a much, much better
programmer than the author of JNOS, not to mention all the anonymous junior
programmer wanna-bees that have peed on JNOS, over the years. That code is a
real mess, now. - The inevitable result of "open sewers" programming
technique.
You will find that operating genuine packet BBS software running over DOS to
be a real pleasure, after struggling with Linux/JNOS. It must be remembered
that JNOS' "BBS" functions are the result of a poorly-done hack of
legitimate BBS software, by a "programmer" who obviously did not have the
concept of packet BBS operation very clear in his mind. Even when it works,
nobody likes it because the interface sucks so hard. All that "area" crap,
etc... It's just a waste of time.
After years of bad-mouthing packet BBS's, the truth finally came out when
amateur tcpip enthusiasts discovered that hardly ANYBODY wanted to operate
NOS. The ham tcpip community responded to this fact by inexpertly hacking
basic BBS functions onto various flavors of "NOS", in a desperate bid to get
some significant number of hams to tolerate the weird NOS software. This
effort failed to make NOS popular, but at least it did lay to rest all those
years of bad-mouthing BBS stations. It made it plain that amateur tcpip
enthusiasts know that packet BBS systems are the best way to go. They had to
pretend to be packet BBS's, in order to get anyone to use thier software at
all.
If you install DOS, FBB, and FlexNet, your station will preform better on
the air than any packet system available for Linux. The Linux stuff depends
upon the obsolete KISS protocol, nice stuff in the 1980's but definately
third-rate in this day and age. If you want the latest packet technology
from the 1980's, stick with JNOS/Linux. If on-the-air performance is
important to you, then you want FlexNet.
Of course it may be that you are running Linux/JNOS because you hope to run
a packet/internet gateway... In that case, the DOS/FBB/FlexNet setup would
not work for you, and the best thing you can do is to send your ham liscense
back to the FCC, sell your ham equipment and buy yourself some FRS and CB
gear.
Hope this helps!
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Gene Storey
>
> Hope this helps!
It doesn't. Your argument is much that of a Mac user when asked
a PC question. They say buy a Mac, and then list a bunch of
generalities while bashing the PC.
charlesb
"Gene Storey" <nos...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5Xwkb.1932$5c2.310@okepread03...
Not really. The guy wanted to know how to get the JNOS software to behave
and I gave an honest answer as to how I would solve the problem. - I would
round-file the JNOS software, and go from there.
I used to test and review packet software, and found JNOS to be the very
lousiest excuse for packet radio software I had ever seen. Despite that, I
did manage to get it working, at least good enough so that I could test its
functionality for a fair review, so I am familiar with the unnecessary
head-aches and poor on-the-air performance this guy is putting up with.
I gave the guy a little historical info about the software he was using, and
pointed the way to more modern software that will do a better job with a lot
less trouble. I was working on the assumption that the guy was not a
masochist, but just wanted a reliable packet radio BBS that would work
without constant massaging and tinkering, or embarassing malfunctions that
lose people's messages.
I suppose that you are free to run me down for trying to help the guy out,
but notice that I won't say a single word about you being an obvious
"protocol warrior", still stuck back in the 1980's.
Charles Brabhan, N5PVL
Jeff Camp
at JNOS. I ran it for several years and found it to be very unreliable and
unable to integrate with gateway software. I used FBB to run the local
packet BBS here in Omaha and to forward on VHF, UHF, HF, and the internet.
FBB is great for talking to other FBB systems, but not too good at talking
to anything else.
And yes, I plan to gateway this system through the internet. I'll hold on
to my ham license, though. I need it for my 10-15 hours I spend each week
on HF either on 7.261 or working cw on the low end of 40.
And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS if I
wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years.
73,
Jeff
N0WJP
"charlesb" <n5...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:mszkb.1510$Ij2...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
charlesb
> Thanks for the suggestions, Charles, but FBB is the whole reason I'm
looking
> at JNOS. I ran it for several years and found it to be very unreliable
and
> unable to integrate with gateway software. I used FBB to run the local
> packet BBS here in Omaha and to forward on VHF, UHF, HF, and the internet.
> FBB is great for talking to other FBB systems, but not too good at talking
> to anything else.
Well, to tell the truth, Jeff, you are the second person I've ever heard
talk about FBB BBS software being "unreliable". The other complainer was a
LandLine Lid, too, so I'll assume it's the non-ham stuff that you are having
trouble with.
You can imagine how broke up I must be, over you experiencing difficulties
while trying to screw up.
> And yes, I plan to gateway this system through the internet. I'll hold on
> to my ham license, though. I need it for my 10-15 hours I spend each week
> on HF either on 7.261 or working cw on the low end of 40.
Don't count on your messages being delivered to or by the genuine amateur
radio stations in the BBS forwarding net. Gateway stations have caused so
much damage to the fowarding network that many BBS forwarders are now
refusing to handle traffic either coming from or going into any LandLine Lid
system. Several of the more destructive LansdLine Lid stations have been
isolated this way, to reduce the amount of damage that they can do.
There are now large sections of the country where non-ham stuff is not
allowed to participate in the Ham Radio network at all. Your messages will
not be delivered there. LandLine Lid stations there can chat with each other
on the Internet, as usual, but are not allowed to disrupt the activities of
genuine amateur radio packet network. You will probably be "forwarding" (
internet chatting) with some of these lonely, out of place LandLine Lid
stations, keeping a miserable trickle of messages going for them.
Remember that the packet radio HF forwarding network is an association of
amateur radio operators who work to implement HF digital links. Your non-ham
links are not welcome amongst these hams who are trying to use radio, and
your operation within that group with your non-ham links will- to the extent
that it is tolerated - cause disruption within the network, making it harder
for hams to use radio as intended for this purpose.
- But you already know all that, Jeff, and don't care. That's the kind of
"ham" that you are, aren't you?
You know, this kind of destructive, disruptive LandLine Lid "protocol war"
behavior was bad enough back in the 1980's... Back then, it decimated the
existing HF forwarding network and disrupted packet communications across
the USA, and it was all chalked up to "protocol wars", as if that was any
justification for deliberately disrupting amateur radio communications.
These days, with the ARRL affiliated with Homeland Security, your
disruptive, anti-ham activities may have a little bit more serious
consequences that they might have had ten years ago.
I sincerely hope that it does. You are an insect, Jeff, that really deserves
to be squashed. I consider anybody who deliberately denigrates and undercuts
the ham digital network as you intend to do, during this time of war against
terrorism to be beneath contempt. What used to be despicable enough as
"protocol warrior" behavior back in the 1980's can now end up costing
people's lives and property, disrupting our ability to as hams to provide
emergency communications in the event of a terrorist attack or disaster.
There is literally no excuse for the disruptive, destructive activity you
propose.
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Director: USPacket.Net
http://www.uspacket.net
n5...@uspacket.net
charlesb
> >
> And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS if I
> wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years.
>
I didn't say it was newer, I said it was more reliable and did not require
so much tinkering. You can get copiies of DOS all over the place. Try an
interenet search, or get somebody to show you how to do one.
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Gene Storey
"charlesb" <n5...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
charlesb
I'm kind of disgusted, but not really "mad". The guy is an insect, annoying
but nothing to get upset about.
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
"Gene Storey" <nos...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:aJPkb.3435$5c2.2479@okepread03...
Jeff Camp
Charles, why don't you join us in the 21st century? It's attitudes like
yours that have made ham radio just a "curiosity" rather than a community of
dedicated experimenters who develop new communications technology before the
commercial interests can do it. If I'm an insect, then you're an antique.
As for HF forwarding I guess we'll wait and see. I'll attempt to get back
into HF forwarding once my VHF, UHF and microwave links are back up.
73,
Jeff
N0WJP
"Gene Storey" <nos...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:aJPkb.3435$5c2.2479@okepread03...
Hank Oredson
> Yeah, I'm in real trouble now.
>
> Charles, why don't you join us in the 21st century? It's attitudes like
> yours that have made ham radio just a "curiosity" rather than a community of
> dedicated experimenters who develop new communications technology before the
> commercial interests can do it. If I'm an insect, then you're an antique.
Ah yes! The dedicated Land Line Lid!
Spouting the same drivel and lies they all do.
"Why not advance ham radio by using the internet instead of radio!"
Sir, you are an idiot.
--
... Hank
Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net
W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net
tim gorman
I'm not familar with JNOS but this sounds like a routing problem.
Does each local user have their own mail queue? Under linux, each user has a
file under /var/spool/mail. Mail coming into the box is transferred into a
file under /var/spool/mail by the sendmail program. Sendmail looks up each
destination address in an 'aliases' file (/etc/aliases or
/etc/mail/aliases), if it isn't found there it is written into a file in
the /var/spool/mail directory. The file is given the name of the
destination address (i.e. the local user). If it is found in the aliases
file, the real name stored in the aliases file is substituted for the
destination address and then the message is written into the correct file
under the /var/spool/mail directory.
It sounds like you either have no program like sendmail looking at the
incoming mail queue in order to deliver it locally or your local users are
not defined to the linux system.
Does JNOS have a mail transport agent process that perhaps isn't getting
started? Are all local users defined properly?
I hope this gives you a place to start.
Tim ab0wr
charlesb
>
> If I'm an insect, then you're an antique.
Hey Bub, you're the one pushing the latest packet radio technology from the
1980's... Your "protocol warrior" attitude is 1980's vintage as well. You're
the antique, OM... Your bogus attitude is as obsolete as the bogus software
you are struggling with.
Insect.
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Gene Storey
and just like Hams, they are super-critical about what a "true hot rodder" should
have on his car. I know for a fact that these guys blow shit up even if it was gold
plated, but yet they keep buying the same shit because everyone else will label
them a traitor or a poster-boy for some manufacturer. There's some people who
can't operate without negative peer pressure. They wrap their positive messages in
negative slants about one thing or another.
You can't change them, and they are too stupid to change themselves.
"Jeff Camp" <jca...@cox.net> wrote
> Yeah, I'm in real trouble now.
>
> Charles, why don't you join us in the 21st century? It's attitudes like
> yours that have made ham radio just a "curiosity" rather than a community of
> dedicated experimenters who develop new communications technology before the
> commercial interests can do it. If I'm an insect, then you're an antique.
>
> As for HF forwarding I guess we'll wait and see. I'll attempt to get back
> into HF forwarding once my VHF, UHF and microwave links are back up.
>
> 73,
> Jeff
> N0WJP
>
>
> "Gene Storey" <nos...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >
Gene Storey
"Hank Oredson" <hore...@att.net> wrote
charlesb
> I run around with some Drag racing guys (Top Fuel, Funny Cars, Gassers,
etc),
> and just like Hams, they are super-critical about what a "true hot rodder"
should
> have on his car. I know for a fact that these guys blow shit up even if
it was gold
> plated, but yet they keep buying the same shit because everyone else will
label
> them a traitor or a poster-boy for some manufacturer. There's some people
who
> can't operate without negative peer pressure. They wrap their positive
messages in
> negative slants about one thing or another.
>
> You can't change them, and they are too stupid to change themselves.
>
Yes, you are right, Gene... In this case, Internet junkies think it's cool
to disrupt the amateur radio hobby because ham radio is not "IP", or it's
not "fast enough", or - whatever. ( Insert anti-ham sentiment or whiney
excuse here. ) You can't change them, and they are too stupid to change
themselves.
Kind of like a guy who insists upon sneaking a little nitro to his tank in a
gas competition so that he can "win", LandLine Lids undermine the entire
concept of Amateur Radio ( Using Radio, Duh! ) by using Internet links as
part of the packet radio network and so are not really "winners"... They are
just disruptive jerk-offs. - You can't change them, and they are too stupid
to change themselves.
Insects.
Ham Radio is a much more serious hobby than hotrodding, in that a central
part of our reason for being is to provide independent, alternative
emergency communications during the course of a disaster or emergency. The
activities of amateur radio operators save lives and property. We do this by
developing and maintaining day to day ham radio communications so that we
will be there in time of need. This has become even more important since the
9/11 attack, as the subsequent affilliation of the ARRL with the Dept. of
Homeland Security would indicate to anybody who is not completely
brain-dead.
Non-ham communication links have no place whatsoever within an amateur radio
network, as they are the very type of communications that we are supposed to
be backing up. - Hopefully a few of us here are intelligent enough to
understand the fact that you cannot "back up" a communications system that
you are utterly dependent upon. - It would be like having a special
telephone number to call, in case the phones go dead. - Useless in your hour
of need.
So when insectoid types disrupt the ham radio hobby by imposing unwanted,
inappropriate non-ham links within our amateur packet radio network, they
are not just being jerkoffs, they are directly endangering human lives and
property by interfering with the ability of amateur radio operators to
fulfill one of our primary reasons for being - emergency communications.
Tell you what, Gene... I'll send an note to the Dept of Homeland Security
and see how they feel about people deliberately interfering with hams trying
to provide alternative, independent emergency communications capability.
They may have some suggestions for dealing with persons who insist upon
undercutting and interfering with amateur radio operators engaged in
activities related to our affiliation with Homeland Defense, or may know who
to talk to in the FCC about this matter. There's really no reason for hams
to have to tolerate this kind of disruptive, irresponsible behavior any
more.
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Jeff Camp
Put your money where your mouth is. If you're interested in really seeing
what the Department of Homeland Security thinks about the issue, please drop
them a note about me. I'd be happy to be your "test case" on internet
forwarding. My contact info is good in the callbook and QRZ.COM.
I'll make you a deal. If they agree with you that internet forwarding
should not be allowed for the purposes you have listed, then I'll gladly
disconnect my system from the internet and unconditionally apologize to you
here or in any forum you choose. If they decide that internet forwarding
poses no threat from their perspective, you can apologize to me here and
stop harassing those of us who would like to use the internet for forwarding
in addition to RF. Do you have the nerve to back up what you say?
Also, if you're able to work HF, then I hang out on 7261 or thereabouts
after 10:00PM central time (usually 7281 before 10) and would love to have
you check into the 1721 group. They don't have anything to do with packet
or forwarding, but they're a great group of people and everyone's welcome.
73,
Jeff
N0WJP
"charlesb" <n5...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yRZkb.2096$lY4...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
Jeff Camp
thinking that you did a couple of years ago. My friend, I spend most of my
time in this hobby working different modes on HF, VHF, UHF and microwave and
almost no time on packet.
If you feel better calling me a land line lid, then have at it. Also, take
a look at my earlier reply to Charles. You can feel free to put your money
where your mouth is, too.
73,
Jeff
N0WJP
"Hank Oredson" <hore...@att.net> wrote in message
news:g6Skb.186556$0v4.14...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
charlesb
> Charles --
>
> Put your money where your mouth is. If you're interested in really seeing
> what the Department of Homeland Security thinks about the issue, please
drop
> them a note about me. I'd be happy to be your "test case" on internet
> forwarding. My contact info is good in the callbook and QRZ.COM.
You'll have to settle for being "generic" unless that kind of detail is
actually called for. There are dozens of gateway stations. What I will be
doing is demonstrating how the imposition of non-ham links into the amateur
radio digital network has undercut and interfered with that network, a
result of packet/internet gateways being unregulated in the United States.
I'm in a good position to do that, as I was a participant in the global HF
digital network that existed prior to the introduction of non-ham links, and
am aware of the mechanism by which those unwanted non-ham links destroyed
the network within just a few years. It's fairly easy to demonstrate, and
most packet enthusiasts who were around at the time are familiar with how it
worked. There was a two-pronged approach, where some HF forwarders were
starved for traffic to send, while others were grossly overloaded, way
beyond capacity. Prior to the introduction of the non-ham links, the global
HF net had operated smoothly and reliably. It was and still is the most
significant example of global cooperation among ham radio operators - ever.
Unregulated gateways destroyed that.
I was also intimately associated with an advanced, large-scale VHF/UHF
packet radio network (TexNet) that started replacing it's existing 9.6kb
backbone links with Internet connections, and totally self-destructed within
a few years of that move. When the Internet became widely available, all of
the large-scale VHF/UHF packet networks naturally took a hit. - But all of
them survived and are now growing again except TexNet, which is the only big
packet net to completely disappear from the face of the Earth. At one time
it had over 100 nodes, covering three states. All gone, now. Non-ham links
are the kiss of death.
I can demonstrate packet networks located overseas that operated under
regulations that did not allow the imposition of non-ham links. Without
exception, those networks continued to advance and grow the entire time the
US network, and the global HF net were disrupted and lost coherency. Those
folks use 9.6kb - 19.2kb for access these days, with a lot of the backbone
being 19.2 fulldup to 72.8 fulldup. All ham radio, with voice over packet
and neat stuff like that. This network has a footprint of close to 600-800
miles, maybe better. Nice what you can accomplish, when you stay on-mission
and concentrate on doing things with radio. I do not think it will be hard
to demonstrate that we should be doing that in the US, too. All we need is a
reg that forbids the insertion of non-ham links into a ham radio network, so
we can get back on-mission again.
Did you know that prior to the introduction of non-ham links into the US
packet network, we provided leadership to the world in this area with the
most widespread, sophisticated packet network on the planet?
I can also demonstrate that the only rapidly growing packet network in the
US today ( 140+ nodes in a few years ) specifically does not allow non-ham
links. They simply shut offenders out of the system, and stick with radio.
They have the fastest growing, most advanced packet network in the US to
show for it.
The thing about this is: There is no recorded case of a large-scale VHF/UHF
network surviving the wide-spread imposition of non-ham links. The global HF
network was killed by non-ham links as soon as the Internet made them
available. By way of contrast, there is no record of a packet network that
banned non-ham links which has not steadily advanced and grown, the whole
time. If you graph it, you can show a direct relationship between the
imposition of non-ham links and the decline of a packet radio network's perf
ormance and utility. It has the same end effect as malicious interference,
and should be regulated as such, for that reason.
Note: The idea is ban non-ham links within the ham network, not the use of
gateways. Gateways are important because they provide a way for the two
networks to communicate with each other, so don't look for me to propose
throwing tossing the baby out with the bath water, as some have suggested.
The idea is to be able to provide effective, alternate emergency
communications, and gateways are essential for that task, among others. ANY
tool can hurt you if you use it improperly, and can also be of great benefit
if you don't grab the wrong end of it. All we need is a reg that prohibits
improper use of gateways.
>
> I'll make you a deal. If they agree with you that internet forwarding
> should not be allowed for the purposes you have listed, then I'll gladly
> disconnect my system from the internet and unconditionally apologize to
you
> here or in any forum you choose. If they decide that internet forwarding
> poses no threat from their perspective, you can apologize to me here and
> stop harassing those of us who would like to use the internet for
forwarding
> in addition to RF. Do you have the nerve to back up what you say?
I have the nerve to back up anything I say, but that does not mean that I
will accept a juvenile challenge as you have put forward here. What I will
do is send a note to the Homeland Security folks, as I said.
>
> Also, if you're able to work HF, then I hang out on 7261 or thereabouts
> after 10:00PM central time (usually 7281 before 10) and would love to have
> you check into the 1721 group. They don't have anything to do with packet
> or forwarding, but they're a great group of people and everyone's welcome.
>
Thanks, but I hardly ever get lower than 30 meters, or use a mike on HF
these days. I live at the extreme southern tip of Texas, so its doubful that
we could hear each other on 40 meters in any case!
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Jeff Camp
need to be specific. In order to initiate legislation or court directives,
you have to be precise in what you're asking for. I'm volunteering to help
you in your cause if you are serious.
By "non-ham links" do you mean message forwarding with non-ham systems or do
you mean forwarding with other licensed amateurs over the internet? I have
no intention of forwarding with anyone without an amateur radio license and
have always actively blocked those messages in the past.
I'm aware of the TexNet situation. Replacing 9.6k links with high
performance redundant messaging paths could also be called evolution. Look,
I'm not advocating replacing RF links with the internet. I'm advocating
using the internet to enhance an already existing messaging system.
As for my "juvenile challenge," I'm just saying that if you believe so
strongly in your cause, show it with action instead of endless whining and
reminiscing about the way ham radio used to be 20 years ago. I'm
volunteering to help you put an end to the same debate that's been going on
here for years. I'd be happy with a decision in your favor or mine.
Try 40 meters late at night. The band goes long starting about 10PM and I
talk to people in Texas, Mexico, and Cuba, and even into South America
almost every night.
73,
Jeff
N0WJP
"charlesb" <n5...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:0G%kb.2537$E33...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
Hank Oredson
> Hank, I'm glad to see you have the same closed mind and "in the box"
> thinking that you did a couple of years ago. My friend, I spend most of my
> time in this hobby working different modes on HF, VHF, UHF and microwave and
> almost no time on packet.
That is quite clear!
> If you feel better calling me a land line lid, then have at it. Also, take
> a look at my earlier reply to Charles. You can feel free to put your money
> where your mouth is, too.
Just what band and mode are you operating when
you play pretend radio over the internet?
> 73,
> Jeff
> N0WJP
Hank Oredson
> I run around with some Drag racing guys (Top Fuel, Funny Cars, Gassers, etc),
> and just like Hams, they are super-critical about what a "true hot rodder"
should
> have on his car.
Yup, that's the key. "... on his car ...".
What do you think about the guys who bring jet airplanes
to the meet and then tell you your racers are boring, slow,
and the wave of the future is airplanes. Then he gets all over
the strip and won't go away and you don't get to race anymore.
Does that help you locate a clue?
Gene Storey
must be about ready to explode with so much blood out of circulation.
Anyone who thinks FEMA needs Hams to do its job is severely
crippled in the brain department. They laugh when a bunch of old
men show up with their talkies to help in an emergency, and to get
them off their back, they assign them to the chuck wagons, or water-boy
stations. FEMA is equipped to drive into any town and blow away
any problem. That one rig they have can instantly hook-up to the national
infrastructure outside the disaster area, that Hams are left scratching their
asses.
Hams missed the boat on microsats. They were the first in space with that
concept, and then they threw it away, and spent all their money (millions)
on the Phase-III pig that is mostly off on any pass over the US.
I've asked at our club how many are going to buy the AOR digital
voice modem (designed by a UK Ham), and they all just laughed and
asked what could it do that our repeater or BBS can't! After telling
them how it would improve long distance communications, and voice
quality in the same space as SSB, they just shrugged. Who cares!
SSB is good enough they said. Hoo-rah said the amen corner...
Sorry, Mr. Director, it's a dead hobby. Made up of dead people in line
to get their SK award from the ARRL (who hasn't changed leadership
in 20+ years).
Gene, ex-Ham
"charlesb" <n5...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
Hank Oredson
> Charles --
>
> Put your money where your mouth is. If you're interested in really seeing
> what the Department of Homeland Security thinks about the issue, please drop
> them a note about me. I'd be happy to be your "test case" on internet
> forwarding. My contact info is good in the callbook and QRZ.COM.
"Ha ha ha, I'm going to screw up your network and you can't stop me!"
> I'll make you a deal.
Sorry, no deals with lids.
Not with pirates or jammers either.
Hank Oredson
> I'm not sure what you mean by "generic." In order to effect change, you
> need to be specific. In order to initiate legislation or court directives,
> you have to be precise in what you're asking for. I'm volunteering to help
> you in your cause if you are serious.
Oh my!
A PEDANTIC and LEGALISTIC Land Line Lid at that!
"I'm going to screw up your network and you can't stop me, nyah nyah!"
Gene Storey
pass on trying to figure out what the hell you're whining about now.
"Hank Oredson" <hore...@att.net> wrote
Jeff Camp
than stand on the side and take pot shots at the other team. You probably
don't have the mental horsepower to remember, but the last time you and I
had this discussion was on packet. My messages to you were going out the hf
port on my fbb system to W8AKF and your replies were going through about a
dozen internet hops to get back to my system through WB0TAX. Looks like I
had a better rf path than you did.
If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit around
and whine.
73,
Jeff
N0WJP
"Hank Oredson" <hore...@att.net> wrote in message
news:5t0lb.8741$Ec1.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Hank Oredson
> No, Hank. I just know that if you want to win the game,
What game? Why would I want to "win"?
> you have to do more
I don't "have to" do anything.
> than stand on the side and take pot shots at the other team. You probably
> don't have the mental horsepower to remember, but the last time you and I
> had this discussion was on packet. My messages to you were going out the hf
> port on my fbb system to W8AKF and your replies were going through about a
> dozen internet hops to get back to my system through WB0TAX. Looks like I
> had a better rf path than you did.
My replies went directly to N0RVX. Right near you.
Why wouldn't he forward to you? Guess ...
You know all that, but you lie about it.
> If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit around
> and whine.
Why? Seems you have not paid attention to what I've been doing
the past 5 years or so. Sharp stick. Poke in eye of Land Line Lid
Ya killed the RF network, good for you. Why should I care?
Hank Oredson
--
... Hank
"Gene Storey" <nos...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3B0lb.4906$5c2.4667@okepread03...
charlesb
>
> If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit around
> and whine.
>
Yes, that is precisely the attitude of packet networkers who simply refuse
to allow non-ham links within their network. It works every time, too! The
LandLine Lids get shut out - and all of a sudden, they are not such a
problem anymore. Things start working better.
This has demonstrated that as hams, we can self-police this problem in the
US very effectively. Still, a federal prohibition on inteference by persons
hooking up unwanted non-ham links within an amateur radio network would
still be a good idea.
Only the packet networks that ban non-ham links are currently growing and
advancing, so it's just a matter of time, as they say... ;-) Still,
we should not let this lead us to a complacent, tolerant attitude about what
amounts to malicious interference, especially where our ability to provide
emergency communications is being undermined.
Most of the progress so far has been made with VHF/UHF networks, but HF
still needs work and is vital to re-establishing a global all-ham radio
digital network. Hams who would like to be part of the solution in this area
should contact me at n5...@uspacket.net , or post at the new USPN Forum.
Right now, both the FCC and several manufacturers of amateur radio equipment
have unfavorable opinions about EchoLink and IRLP, from what I gather. Did
you read this month's Op-Ed in QST? With digital voice coming up soon, this
would be an excellent time to cut the Internet umbilical entirely so that
ham radio can resume its job of providing alternative, independent
communications. This will go far in getting the hobby back on track, while
protecting it from vandalism.
Internet forwarders are insects, parasites, blood-suckers who feed off of
and infect something several orders of magnitude greater than themselves.
Being parasites, they naturally are big proponents of the parasitic
lifestyle, frequently expressing disdain for their host and calling others
to join them in their mindless insect gluttony.
The thing they have to watch out for is Ham Radio getting irritated, and
deciding to scratch it's ass. We can do that by promoting a "No non-ham
links within a ham radio network" rule, either among ourselves through
self-policing, or more definatively through involving the federal
government. Everywhere it has been tried, it has resulted in a re-energized,
faster growing, more advanced packet radio network. You can't beat a deal
like that.
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Gene Storey
"charlesb" <n5...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
Jeff Camp
Moines. I'm not sure what hf frequency RVX was on, but I was on 14.098 and
he wasn't there. I'm not lying about anything. RVX never told me he didn't
want to forward.
As for what you've done for the last five years, I think that you've spent a
lot of effort spewing out negative opinions on everything rather than
mentoring hams who want to learn more about packet networks or maybe showing
them how to forward using HF. The guy who helped me set up my HF port spent
many hours teaching me how things worked, why they worked, and how HF
forwarding is different from VHF. It was a great learning experience and
I'm looking forward to getting back on an HF network.
Here's a question for you. I have a good friend who's a ham. He has a
microwave path from Omaha to Des Moines on a frequency that is shared
between ham radio and other services. Ham frequency, ham license. If I
forward over that link would you call that acceptable? By the way, his
company is an ISP and the link is his backbone connection to Des Moines, but
he's a licensed ham and he's running over frequencies allocated to both
amateir radio and other services.
73,
Jeff
N0WJP
"Hank Oredson" <hore...@att.net> wrote in message
news:WC1lb.187215$0v4.14...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Jeff Camp
>
> "Jeff Camp" <jca...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:xS0lb.21852$iq3.776@okepread01...
> >
> > If you don't like something, do something about it. Don't just sit
around
> > and whine.
> >
>
> Yes, that is precisely the attitude of packet networkers who simply refuse
> to allow non-ham links within their network. It works every time, too! The
> LandLine Lids get shut out - and all of a sudden, they are not such a
> problem anymore. Things start working better.
Great. I'm glad it's working for you. What does that have to do with my
gateway? What would you say if internet forwarders decided not to allow any
stations that forward via RF links because they're so slow compared to
internet links?
>
> This has demonstrated that as hams, we can self-police this problem in the
> US very effectively. Still, a federal prohibition on inteference by
persons
> hooking up unwanted non-ham links within an amateur radio network would
> still be a good idea.
I think you'd have a hard time claiming interference. You still haven't
answered my question. By non-ham links do you mean forwarding with non-ham
systems or do you mean travelling over links that are not amateur radio
(such as the internet)?
>
> Only the packet networks that ban non-ham links are currently growing and
> advancing, so it's just a matter of time, as they say... ;-) Still,
> we should not let this lead us to a complacent, tolerant attitude about
what
> amounts to malicious interference, especially where our ability to provide
> emergency communications is being undermined.
>
That's great. Eventually they might even upgrade to something faster than
1200 baud. Put things in perspective. Manufacturers stopped shipping 1200
baud modems in 1988 because they were obsolete technology. Why would you
build a new network on something like that?
> Most of the progress so far has been made with VHF/UHF networks, but HF
> still needs work and is vital to re-establishing a global all-ham radio
> digital network. Hams who would like to be part of the solution in this
area
> should contact me at n5...@uspacket.net , or post at the new USPN Forum.
>
I looked at your forum. Doesn't look like you have any takers.
> Right now, both the FCC and several manufacturers of amateur radio
equipment
> have unfavorable opinions about EchoLink and IRLP, from what I gather. Did
> you read this month's Op-Ed in QST? With digital voice coming up soon,
this
> would be an excellent time to cut the Internet umbilical entirely so that
> ham radio can resume its job of providing alternative, independent
> communications. This will go far in getting the hobby back on track, while
> protecting it from vandalism.
>
I didn't see QST, but the AES catalog I got about a week ago has some radios
from Icom that are digital and even have ethernet ports. Looks like
manufacturers are promoting digital voice, not abandoning it. I think
Alinco has had an HT with digital capability for a couple of years. Yaesu
is selling it's WIRES interface. Do you think you can get one of those
things passing digitized voice over a 1200 baud packet link?
> Internet forwarders are insects, parasites, blood-suckers who feed off of
> and infect something several orders of magnitude greater than themselves.
> Being parasites, they naturally are big proponents of the parasitic
> lifestyle, frequently expressing disdain for their host and calling others
> to join them in their mindless insect gluttony.
>
You're a real poet.
> The thing they have to watch out for is Ham Radio getting irritated, and
> deciding to scratch it's ass. We can do that by promoting a "No non-ham
> links within a ham radio network" rule, either among ourselves through
> self-policing, or more definatively through involving the federal
> government. Everywhere it has been tried, it has resulted in a
re-energized,
> faster growing, more advanced packet radio network. You can't beat a deal
> like that.
>
> Charles Brabham, N5PVL
>
Go for it. Re-energize America's packet radio infrastructure. I'm glad you
have a cause to keep you busy.
73,
Jeff
N0WJP
Steve
< /usr/bin/dosemu
I think you just scared me. that still works..?
< On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:44:32 -0500, Jeff Camp wrote:
>> And speaking of obsolete systems, where would I buy a copy of DOS if I
>> wanted to run FBB? I haven't seen one for almost 10 years.
>>
>> 73,
>> Jeff
>> N0WJP
>
< DE KB6IBB :-)