| |
AE5ME > FBB 25.03.14 07:15l 38 Lines 1236 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 4460_AE5ME
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: anyone news on FBB ??
Path: IZ3LSV<IW0QNL<ON4HU<ON0AR<UA6ADV<7M3TJZ<ZL2BAU<N9PMO<VE3UIL<N0KFQ<
AE5ME
Sent: 140325/0504Z @:AE5ME.#NEOK.OK.USA.NOAM #:4460 BPQ1.4.56
VK2AWZ,
While I don't have firsthand experience with Winpac on BPQ32, a friend of mine
has been
using it. I've attached a message that he posted under CHAT a few days ago:
>From: N0KFQ
>To: CHAT
>Type/Status: BN
>Date/Time: 23-Mar 21:26Z
>Bid: 16054_N0KFQ
>Title: Winpack and Outpost
>My Outpost program completely missed Daryl's EXAMS bulletins. I only
>accidently found them while "working" some messages on the bbs.
>I find that Winpack is far better than Outpost for "bulletin intensive"
>packet work. I like Outpost best for everything else, but for bulletins,
>Winpack is great!.
>I set up Winpack to use a "tactical callsign" (alias) so that it will
>not pick up my "P-Mail", but will get the bulls... then I get the P-Mail
>with Outpost.
>In the "strictest sense", it is not legal (in the USA) to use "tactical
>callsigns" with Winpack on RF... telnet is okay.
>So, why not use Winpack exclusively? Because it is much easier to use
>the new "packet-to-email", the "tactical callsigns", and the special
>FEMA message forms on both RF (legally) and TELNET with Outpost.
>So, I am now using both Winpack and Outpost...
>73, K.O. n0kfq
>N0KFQ @ N0KFQ.#SWMO.MO.USA.NA
>E-mail: kohiggs@gmail.com
>Using Outpost Ver 2.8.0
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
