| |
VE3WBZ > ALL 28.12.12 02:33l 192 Lines 8263 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 16818_VE3LSR
Read: GUEST
Subj: RE: Paula G8PZT's BBS Lockdown
Path: IZ3LSV<I0OJJ<VE3UIL<VE3LSR
Sent: 121228/0019Z @:VE3LSR.#SCON.ON.CAN.NOAM #:16818 [Barrie] $:16818_VE3LSR
From: VE3WBZ@VE3LSR.#SCON.ON.CAN.NOAM
To : ALL@WW
TO: ALL @WW
FR: VE3WBZ
DT: Thursday, December 27th.,2012 @1820hrs EST <JPST>
Hello Paula, and others on this an issue going back years;
No problem commenting...
<< Quoting G8PZT to ALL @WW >>
> From : G8PZT To : ALL @WW
> Type/Status : B$ Date/Time : 27-Dec 20:24
> Bid : 000870361PZT Message # : 82351
> Title : Should Packet Be Locked Down?
>
> 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!"
I see you agree with Angela PE1BIV on her statement at the end
of all her packet postings. There is a reason. I happen to
agree with Angela.
> 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!
My BBS or type of goes back to just before the 1980s and on a
Sinclair-Timex with a tape drive and storage, so yeah been around
for a long time as a Sysop, even telling the Post Office their
years of mail were ending as I passed my first message over the
phone.
> 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!!!
The reason for Amateur RADIO is "radio" ...RF ... and such as
packet is radio. No other excuses, as most schools have long
buried the Amateur Radio and have computer labs, and all connected
by Internet. Lots of other things, on Internet for users
then pifflying about with getting a licence to use the Internet
prgram to seemingly get them onair.
> 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.
Dial-Up BBSes and also old FBB BBS had the dial-ip option to allow
local users to come in that way and read but not send out. Also
mentioning that Scanner users had their TNC to read the packet
bands when active...that allow would peak their interests to be
licenced to get better control and also read more and post, instead
of waiting for a packet station to come onair.
> 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.
People who want to be Amateur Radio Operators, will do it no matter
what, even if the Internet via a computer to an Internet link is
more easy and better stuff.
It just isn't popular anymore, and is slowly going.
> 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.
Thats the problem of a Amateur Radio BBS Operator and his or her
BBS. Accounts and making sure the one applying is whom they say
they are and can prove it. Ever seen the stuff asked by hams
now to users to setup accounts?
> 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.
I wonder really, who wants to take anyone's place operating
a Packet BBS? I say the chances are slim ...but then I look
a my location and some others who have commented, on "if" and
then when Trevor passed...NO ONE replaced him...and even more
go Internet, thus that famed nail in the coffin looms.
> 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?
Before, and we all remember Hank W0RDI or whatever his call
rattling off on those who had Landline BBSes or whatever, then
the Internet, and lots more, doing double duty keeping RF HF
forwarding going, etc ... they're ALL gone now. NO replacements.
Yes I was stupid to post my address, yes even a telephone number
and all the time the email addresses, because unlike Jerry WA2
whatever his call who sent you that rubbish, WE had friends
via packet who would write, or call my mother or my girlfriend
now my wife..and all via a secure Packet Radio Network.
> (I suppose this bulletin will be read by 5 hams worldwide,
> and 5000 non-hams!)
Well Paula, I hope you hear from the other 4 hams, as for the
5000 non-hams ...who cares. All they have to do for consideration
in this issue is get their tickets, and get onair.
> 73, Paula
>
> [End of Message #82351 from G8PZT]
Times are changing. In my situation, I separate from Ham Radio and
the Internet. Two separate computers as another one too for the
Dial-Up BBS. For the Internet, it seems there is always the need
for updates, and then new OS and then more updates, and new softeware
for this and that, and funny I see new dial-up BBS coming online
here to connect with, and this might lead to a Network, I hope
never connected to the Internet where what Jerry discribed for
Packet users.
BTW, my girlfriend in BRASIL...became my wife, and while we lost
my mother we also lost two wonderful people in Australia we used
to write and email too daily.
Before my HF wires came down, I had my connections and wiring
nearly compleated for my TNC and AEA PK900 dual port, for HF
forwarding etc with a gentleman who was helping me. Lost his
address and call etc in a Internet probelm as the PC crashed.
I say that because, I totally believe in Radio and RF and
my TNC is on most of the time, with digi active even an old
copy of FBB v315 and guess what? Only thing I have heard
in one year since I had to go this way...a far off node ID.
They are not interested in anything...I am not a member of
their club. When I check they are TOTAL Internet and
Ambulance chasers ..so ??? well ??? ...same with the other
club south of me.
You might be right Paula. We have maybe 5 users of the
so-called Packet Radio Network. Of these "5" <brave souls>
the majority are accessing via the Internet. As for the
Packet Radio Network I wonder the percentage there?
There are other BBSes that can be accessed just to read
via the Internet, and guess what...they are all different.
If I write to ..... @WW it comes out as something else or
not as all, as my callsign is rejected and or banned or
whatever...so excuse me, but all this helps with that nail
or nails in the coffin of the Packet Network.
Oh well ... enough commenting. can hardly wait to read
the postings back to you and I, so let the flames roar
where they may.
Happy New Year 2013 Paula ... I did try your link via
Echolink ...so maybe we can hookup sometime for a real
blab on the issue.
73 Pete VE3WBZ
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
