| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 16.03.00 15:32l 204 Lines 7286 Bytes #-9546 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_73B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/73B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0ABZ<DB0OCA<DB0FC<DB0CL<DB0PDF<DB0SM<
PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PE1MVX<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000314/1345Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:55992 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA31391 ; Tue, 14 Mar 00 12:46:44 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018370 ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:33:16 MET
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 00 19:26:42 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_73B>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/73B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
>in the hands of professionals.
>
Brian,
I have started that topic in order to puch all of us, "digital" hams, to
think about the future of ham digital communications, regarding all those
professionals. And you talk about our 'eclipsed services'. I wonder who is
responsible for a fact that ham digital area has been moved to margins,
regarding your attitude? Maybe our out-of-date rules and regulations that
don't allow anybody to run amtor, pactor, clover etc without Morse exam.
That's why I suggested not to wait for ham digital areas to become
completely abandoned in next few years (look at packet activities now when
compare ten years ago), but to remove obstacles that lead new people to join
Internet instead of ham radio communications.
>ampr.org and the amprnet are primarily for research, development, and
>recreation. It should not be depended upon for production or safety use.
>- Brian
Not sure if I understood that properly (my english is not native). What is
the problem if 'amateur' research and development within digital area, for
example in this actual mailing list and/or newsgroup, result in some
high-tech 'professional' usage? If we allow so many students, engineers etc
to join ham digital radio and develop themselves further, it would be as
good for them as for wide community as well.
Misko YT7MPB
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 23:07:43 GMT
From: nomail@rob.knoware.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: Digital Amateur Radio License
Steve Sampson <ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote:
>oops, we now have the expert of experts SMTP and MX record knowledge.
>"it" is the SMTP server you point at with your Browser mailer, etc. Don't
>care about how your BBS does it.
Most mail programs will send all mail to a single configured SMTP server,
not to the recepient's server. They will let that server do the tricky
work. It may or may not send the message to the recepient's server,
depending on how that server and the recepient's domain are configured.
The situation is indeed not much different from packet radio, only the
typical number of hops is less. There CERTAINLY is no delivery guarantee,
nor is there an error notification guarantee.
Rob
--
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rob Janssen pe1chl@amsat.org | WWW: http://www.knoware.nl/users/rob |
| AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU |
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 18:59:09 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: Digital Amateur Radio License
"Hank Oredson" wrote
>
> Note that all that obfuscation you provided says nothing at all
> about what should (or even what can) happen when a message
> cannot be delivered.
Probably because I have a life. Read the RFC is my answer, get
a Unix box and watch, is another possibility.
> There are NO "guarantees" Steve, none at all, in either network.
> It is all "best effort".
I didn't say there was grandpa, I mentioned that packet BBS has no
mail receipt, and that SMTP mail does. I didn't propose a statistical
summary, or technical essay on why this may not occur. I was making
it a distinct possibility as to why the ARRL or any Ham club doesn't
use packet radio BBS as their Ham mail distribution system.
> If you think there are "guarantees" ... quote the RFCs instead of
> babbling about protocols and address translations.
Cute. You're beginning to wear me down grandpa...
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 08:44:09 -0600
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Digital Amateur Radio License
Dana H. Myers K6JQ <dana@source.net> wrote in message
news:38CB30B6.EB3E3EF2@source.net...
> Charles Brabham wrote:
>
> > What followed was not a "GOLDEN AGE". In fact, the general level of
interest
> > in Packet Radio took a nose-dive about the same time that Amateur tcpip
came
> > into it's own. Figure it out for yourself. Can you say, "LandLine Lids"?
>
> Charles, I believe your analysis is either flawed, biased, or both. While
you
> rail against "Amateur tcpip" (sic) and "LandLine Lids" as the cause of the
> demise of amateur packet radio, you're completely oblivious to a number of
> more relevant issues.
>
I doubt that.
> What snuffed interest in amateur wireless networking was the combination
of
> rapid Internet growth (via wired connections), the virtual inability of
amateurs
> to deploy infrastructure even remotely competitive with what was happening
> in inexpensive commodity modems, and the absolute fixation of most
amateurs
> with just shuffling bits around, rather than thinking about the
*services*.
This may hold true within the LandLine Lid community, but not elsewhere.
Remember that the LLLids are the only ones worried about "competing" with
the Internet. Everybody else has got more sense than that, and realize that
Packet was never intended to "compete" with commercial, non-ham
communications services in the first place.
>
> Packet Radio nose-dived when people figured out is was a square peg being
> driven into a round hole. The users wanted Internet; packet radio could
not
> compete with the alternatives.
Nice theory, but unfortunately it doesn't fit the facts. The folks in Europe
actually average having faster Internet access than most Hams in the USA,
and yet the introduction of cheap, easy Internet access had no serious
effect upon the gropwth of their packet network. Ours network in the US lost
participants in reaction to negative anti-Ham propaganda foisted upon US
hams by the LandLine Lid community. Fortunately, US Hams are quickly
learning to ignore LandLine Lid negativity and build a network anyway. - One
that ALLOWS tcpip, but is no no way based upon, or limited by it.
Really, that worn out old catch-phrase about "competing with the Internet"
is about as obsolete as the "applications mantra". After hearing the
LandLine Lid community parrot the same tired old lines over and over again
for better than ten years, I, along with many other Amateurs have learned to
simply tune out the negativity and anti-ham sentiments - Which leaves the
LandLine Lids at a loss, as that appears to be all they have going for
"going" for them, in the long run.
--
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
--
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 05:25:17 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Digital Amateur Radio License
"Dana H. Myers K6JQ" <dana@source.net> wrote in message
news:38CC5174.D907D4F2@source.net...
> Charles Brabham wrote:
> >
> > Dana H. Myers K6JQ <dana@source.net> wrote in message
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_73C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
