| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 07.03.04 12:13l 226 Lines 9903 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2976-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 05, 2/9
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<ZL2TZE<ZL3VML
Sent: 040307/0957Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:20530 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2976-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Getting off the pot
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 01:01:00 -0500
X-Message-Number: 5
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 23:33:25 -0600, Matt Werner wrote:
>I think you miss some important points.
Maybe, then again I guess it depends what you consider important.
>The first is site access. I am installing a digi in the morning in
>a location that requires a 2 hour drive with the site owner. My
>only access to the site is with him, and the less trips I have to
>make the better.
Best to do it right the first time, with software that can be managed
remotely. Both UIDIGI and DIGINED allow remote management.
>It's not necessary to the operation of the digi
>- it will run fine without it. You say that the payoff would be
>much greater - I disagree. Having a digi on the wrong frequency is
>worthless. Having a digi with outdated software that passes too
>MUCH traffic is far from worthless.
You misunderstand. The example of the digi move in 1997 was to show that
digi-owner's do care and can work together, not to compare it to the simple
task of updating firmware.
>Personally, I don't think that the correct form of "enforcement" has
>presented itself here yet.
I'm not suggesting enforcement, I'm suggesting addressing the problem
directly. If the problem is in the RF domain, and the tools exist to protect
that, then they should be what is done. It is our RF data channels that need
the protection, not the internet.
Nobody can force you to run RF friendly software on your digipeater, nor was
that my intent. I was simply pointing out there is a better way then half
baked internet filtering to try and enforce some sort of peer pressure.
Historically, paths have always been an issue, and since the tools currently
exist to help mitigate the damage these poor choices, then that is the best
solution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Spam to email address transmitted on APRS?
From: James Washer <washer@trlp.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 22:03:19 -0800
X-Message-Number: 6
A couple of other hams and I have been getting tons of spam (with virii
attached) to the email addresses we advertise on our trackers..
The most interesting thing, is that the 'faked' From: fields are from
fellow APRS users.. Looks like someone is mining APRS data to find email
addresses...
- jim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 01:05:14 -0500
X-Message-Number: 7
On 3/4/04 at 11:09 PM Robert Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu> sent:
>>maybe Steve could devise a national wall of shame?
>
>Nope, that *is* doing exactly the wrong thing. That
>is trying to apply one rule everywhere and that is
>just plain wrong. And we all agree to that. There
>are places where WIDE5-5 is needed as routine
>and there are places where WIDE3-3 is TOO MUCH.
Yes, but I don't see anything wrong with a publicly posted page that shows
those people who have been reasonably judged by the locals to be violating
local norms...
>The solution I was trying to come up with assigned
>the RULE at the LOCAL IGate. Local evaluation
>of what is good or bad is the only way to apply "rules"
>if any...
What gives the IGate operator juristiction over the RF network? IGate
operators are likely to be guys more planted on the internet side, like me.
I'd never claim I was fit to set rules for my local RF network. I'd say the
IGate person is the wrong person to vest with this power.
Also, there tend to be many IGates that cover a specific area (especially
the coverage area of someone running a path which is "too long"), and if
even one IGate operator doesn't get the message, or doesn't join in the
plan, then the desired punishment (banishment from the APRS Internet
System) is not executed. The banned user in your plan has the option of
increasing his path to reach an IGate without the restriction, or to put up
his IGate, both of which will bypass the ban and do nothing for the QRM.
On the other hand, I have suggested a system that allows anyone in an area
that sees a problem they cannot get a resolution on by direct contact, to
bring it to a central authority, who if he determines the accused has not
been adequately responsive (NOT if he judges the complaint to be valid)
with one email can ban the person from findU. There would be no way for the
banned user to get around this.
It would be easy to create a machine readable page that any other APRS IS
participant (e.g. APRSworld, jfindu, or a javAPRS site) could access to get
a list of banned calls and act upon it, should they wish to do so (though
there is no requirement that they do so). Client programs could also be
modified to look for this page if their authors choose.
Rather than relying on many different authors and hundreds of IGate
operators to correctly implement the proposal, my plan requires a much
smaller group to be involved, allows complaints to be made by everyone, and
allows precise banning of individuals causing problems rather than
wholesale banning of an entire class of APRS user.
The details of the complaint and judgement system are yours to define, for
example you might require a complaint be made by three operators, or
perhaps by a local ham club, or whatever, before you will hear it. The
point is the complaint is made by locals, about activity which goes againt
local norms.
You needn't take the burden entirely on yourself if you do not wish to,
appoint as many people as you like to make the judgement and share the
responsibility. When judging a complaint you can try to contact the
accused, pursue additional data, make contacts with other locals, and/or
whatever other measures you feel are appropriate.
I'd emphasize the purpose of your judgement is not to decide if the local
policies are the "one right way", only to decide if this person's operation
is indeed causing the QRM of which it is accused, that this operation
violates local norms, and that good faith efforts have been made by locals
(and perhaps you/your group) to contact this individual and hear his side
or to give him an opportunity at education/correction of the problem.
These complaints need not be limited to paths, this system could also
adress fixed stations that beacon every minute, obscenity, and any other
practices which adversely affect a local network.
This system would be MUCH more effective in administering the desired
punishment, cover a wider variety of abuses, and yet be precisely
controllable to only those stations actually causing a problem.
Please Bob, if you want to use findU as a weapon, I ask as the developer of
findU that you do so in the least restrictive manner possible, and my
proposal is far better in this regard than yours.
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 01:08:11 -0500
X-Message-Number: 8
On 3/4/04 at 11:16 PM Robert Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu> sent:
>That is the fix. If every author would include these warnings
>based on need. Then the problem would go away. As it is
>now, a user can use WIDE7-7 and get NO FEEDBACK that
>this is probably not wise...
Except for digis, Kenwoods, TinyTracs, Pic-Es, Mic-Es, HamHuds, MNEA
trackers, etc!
If you can't even get the authors to implement a simple warning, what makes
you think you get them all (and again, it must be ALL) to implement a path
filtration algorithm?
I've offered a better, more focused alternative...
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: APRS beacon messages harvested to send viruses.
From: Dale Mosby <dale@archcape.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:20:44 -0800
X-Message-Number: 9
When I put my TT3 on the air I wanted to put an e-mail address in my status
beacon message. I figured that if I was doing something wrong such as using
a bad digi path or sending too often it would be easy to contact me.
I have a tight spam filter such that even mail that passes obvious spam
checks is held in a folder on a Linux box for a quick look at subjects and
senders once a day. Only mail from people I know, to special mail addresses
at my domain, or with special strings in the header show up in my inbox.
I created a new user e-mail name that has only been sent out in my APRS
beacon messages. It appears that this has been harvested from a web page
somewhere on which it was displayed.
Two days ago I received a very short e-mail to that address with an
attachment which my anti-virus program identified as a virus. This morning
I received a "returned mail" message in which someone forged the sender
using this new address as the sender. That message was rejected by the
receiving mail system because it contained a virus.
In the past I have had my e-mail address forged to send spam, and received
mail bounces to bad addresses. What is unusual here is that it appears the
forged mail from me was going to kk6rw. A check on the web shows that this
is someone involved in APRS.
In the last 10 minutes I have received 6 mail messages all with viruses
attached. Five of these were from addresses of other ham calls, and one was
a bounce of mail forged from me to ve7ggg. I'm now going to trash any
further mail to "k7fw-aprs", the e-mail I used. Tomorrow I will re-program
my TT3 with a new beacon message not having a computer readable e-mail
address.
I don't know that APRS was any special target here, it is certainly
possible that the spammer is just grouping e-mail found on single web
pages, using what appear to be related addresses to send spam.
73, Dale, K7FW
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
