| |
G8PZT > ALL 27.12.12 23:33l 58 Lines 2791 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 000870361PZT
Read: GUEST
Subj: Should Packet Be Locked Down?
Path: IZ3LSV<I0OJJ<VE3UIL<GB7MAX<GB7PZT
Sent: 121227/2024Z @:GB7PZT.#24.GBR.EU [Kidderminster] #:87000 XSERV410h
From: G8PZT@GB7PZT.#24.GBR.EU (Paula)
To: ALL@WW
Subject: Should Packet Be Locked Down?
X-Mailer: XServ v410h HTTPmail
In a recent (unrelated) message, Angela PE1BIV wrote:
"I am opposed to my bulletins being placed on systems where these bulletins
can be publicly accessed by anyone, including search engines and spambots,
from the Internet, without that the user first has to logon to have access
to the system!"
Now, I am one of those so-called "Land Line Lids" who provide an HTTP interface
to my BBS, not only via amprnet, but also via the Internet. The HTML is
deliberately "no-frills" and image free, so that it can be used via RF links,
and it has been used very successfully that way for a very long time. Longer
than some sysops have been around!
I rely on this interface when I'm away from home. It's so much more modern
and easy than remembering a bunch of obscure commands, and it works well
on my Andoid phone, where as mentioned before, Telnet clients are pretty
useless. So I can always stay in touch with packet, even when I've got no
radio. In my view that is one more user on Packet that wouldn't be there
otherwise. And we certainly need all the users we can get nowadays!!!
My HTTP interface allows read-only access without a password. So bulletins
can be read by hams who aren't registered with GB7PZT (try before you buy?),
but also by non-hams. Naturally no-one can send a message unless they log
in.
I've always been in two minds about this. On the one hand I feel, as Angela
does, that what is said on Packet should STAY on packet. But the ethos of
Ham Radio has always been that anyone, licenced or not, can be a SWL. By
allowing non-hams to listen in (or read) our communications, we theoretically
encourage them to become hams themselves.
And personally, I find it convenient to browse the BBS without having to
go through the rigmarole of logging on. As a sysop I also find it convenient
not to have to keep setting up accounts for people.
If I lock my BBS down, there will be dozens of others only too willing to
take my place, so there's no hope of stopping the leakage of bulls onto
the net, UNLESS every single sysop is in agreement. Even then, there are
users who are harvesting bulls off BBS's and posting them online. We'd have
to get sysops to cut those users off too. The genie is well and truly out
of the bottle.
So this is not a simple matter, and there are many conflicting considerations.
I don't like my bulletins being posted all over the web, but for me it is
the lesser of two evils. Surely no-one is stupid enough to post their address,
telephone number or email address in a bulletin anyhow? Hmm, maybe they
are...
What are YOUR thoughts?
(I suppose this bulletin will be read by 5 hams worldwide, and 5000 non-hams!)
73, Paula
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
