Date: Tue, 8 Mar 94 04:30:22 PST From: Ham-Digital Mailing List and Newsgroup Errors-To: Ham-Digital-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: Ham-Digital@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: Ham-Digital Digest V94 #62 To: Ham-Digital Ham-Digital Digest Tue, 8 Mar 94 Volume 94 : Issue 62 Today's Topics: Anyone have the AX.25 spec? Comercial Data Over Radio Food For Thought -- The BBS Network Help Mac->PK232 IMPORTANT NOTICE megabit per second packet (was "Re: Packet at 1.2 GHz (23cm)?") test want aresdata pgm info for packet Send Replies or notes for publication to: Send subscription requests to: Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. Archives of past issues of the Ham-Digital Digest are available (by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-digital". We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Mar 94 20:37:43 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!swrinde!sgiblab!wetware!spunky.RedBrick.COM!psinntp!psinntp!arrl.org!mtracy@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: Anyone have the AX.25 spec? To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu Brian Mahaffy (brianm@boi.hp.com) wrote: : Does anyone have the AX.25 spec they could email me. I have looked : in several places on the Internet, but could not find it. The AX.25 specification is available on the ARRL's Automated Email Information Server (info@arrl.org). To receive this information, send an email to info@arrl.org with any subject and the following text as the body of your message: help index send ax25-1.doc send ax25-2.doc quit You will receive a short set of instructions, a list of available information and the ax.25 spec (in two parts). Additional information on the information server will be posted later this week. 73 de Michael Tracy, KC1SX, ARRL Technical Information Services ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 94 20:38:50 GMT From: news-mail-gateway@ucsd.edu Subject: Comercial Data Over Radio To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu Subject: Time:2:05 PM OFFICE MEMO Comercial Data Over Radio Date:3/7/94 In reply to: need ssb packet radio info from netcomsv!netcomsv!majiq!blair@decwrl.dec.com The author wrote "I want to use marine ssb to transfer files between 2 vessels. Each vessel would be equiped with a PC, radio modem, software and SSB transceiver. I am looking for recommendations on how to get this to work. This would be for commercial use..." The folks who manufacture ham TNC's/modems probably do more business with commercial customers than with hams. So, I'd recommend contacting them directly. Examples are: HAL Communications, P.O. Box 365, Urbana, IL 61801; Kantronics Corp., 1202 E. 23rd St., Lawrence, KS 66046; PacComm, 4413 N. Hesperides St., Tampa, FL 33614; to name a few. If you've got the big bucks there is always Harris, et al, too! By the way, unless you have a special circumstance (read high S/N, low multipath channel) such as line of sight, I'd stay away from AX.25 on H F. It would be hard to devise a worse protocol for H.F., even if you tried. Look at PacTOR, CLOVER II, etc., in "ham" hardware. 73/Rick W0TN P.S. -- I'd prefer to answer by e-mail, but you didn't put name and info in your request for info. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 1994 08:40:53 -0600 From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Food For Thought -- The BBS Network To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu Here are a few observations on improvements needed to the BBS network. I hope that this generates some discussion of these problems which will lead to solutions. BBSs have no priority mechanism for distingushing between bulk mail (bulletins, etc.), normal mail and priority or emergency mail. In an emergency environment these distinctions must be made and the messages queued appropriately. There should be a mechanism to forward priority or emergency mail immediately and to limit the rate of or suspend the forwarding of normal mail and bulk mail. Priority designators should be compatible with or mappable to NTS designators and any other applicable designators; the mapping should be well defined. This capability should be added to the BBS software and should be controllable by remote sysops. There is a schism between the SMTP (TCP/IP) addressing and the BBS addressing mechanism: neither form is compatible with the other. Additionally, some forms of the BBS addresses look too much like Internet addresses (for example, NA and SA are valid Internet top-level domains). This makes it difficult for systems running both BBS and TCP/IP to handle mail. The creation of an addressing system which is compatible with the Internet (and with OSI?) addressing should be explored; if compatiblity is unobtainable the BBS addressing system should at least coexist with little confusion and operational difficulties. Personal messages (one-to-one) and bulletins (one-to-many) are too interemixed. There should be a separation of these two functions at the protocol and addressing level, even if they are combined at the user interface. Bulletins are nearly impossible to manage, especially if one tries to organize them in some logical fashion. Standardized names for bulletin groups should be established with allowances for the addition of local and regional groups. MIDs, BIDs, and other IDs need to be clarified and possibly simplified. BIDs should be expanded to be compatible with that used on the Internet so that newsgroups can be gatewayed at multiple points while avoiding duplication of bulletins. BBS message interchange protocols are poorly documented. (This is being worked on by W0RLI and others.) Jeff, k9ja +-+ Jeffrey Austen | Tennessee Technological University jra1854@tntech.edu | Box 5004 (615) 372-3485 | Cookeville Tennessee 38505 U.S.A. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 94 13:40:46 -0500 From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!atlas.tntech.edu!jmg@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Help Mac->PK232 To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu Hi, would appreciate some help. Trying to help a new ham in town. He just purchased an older PK232 and is interested in Packet. He has a Macintosh computer. Does anyone know of any software out there that is shareware/ freeware that is good? thanks Jeff, AC4HF ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 94 13:20:10 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!paris.ics.uci.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.com!wetware!spunky.RedBrick.COM!psinntp!psinntp!laidbak!tellab5!jwa@ Subject: IMPORTANT NOTICE To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu 3-2-94 CORRECTIONS In the March 94 issue of QST "Packet Perspective" Stan Horzepa WA1LOU wrote an article about the Hamblaster. I would like to make this correction The Address should have been Jack Albert (WA9FVP) 203 York Pl. New Lenox, Il 60451 Ph (815)-723-6564 The address in my signature file (below) is my work QTH. Tellabs Operations Inc. does not manufacture and is not involved with the research and development of the Hamblaster. All inquires should be sent to the address above. --- Jack Albert WA9FVP Fellow Radio Hacker Tele (708) 378-6201 Tellabs Operations, Inc. FAX (708) 378-6721 1000 Remington Blvd. jwa@tellabs.com Bolingbrook, IL 60440 ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 94 04:42:00 GMT From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!library.ucla.edu!news.mic.ucla.edu!MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU!OSYSMAS@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: megabit per second packet (was "Re: Packet at 1.2 GHz (23cm)?") To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu What about 97.311 part e? "The station records must document all SS emission transmissions and must be retained for a period of 1 year..." This includes a general description of the data being sent... Yuck. Makes me want to go part 15 instead... ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 94 16:20:21 MDT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utah-morgan!hellgate.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!stevec.cs.usu.edu!bobw@network.ucsd.edu Subject: test To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 1994 08:54:00 -0800 From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!udel!news.sprintlink.net!connected.com!connected.com!jgates@network.ucsd.edu Subject: want aresdata pgm info for packet To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu Within one of the several help screens for arespack at the very last two lines you will find the authors of DATA - one is Weo Morner, San Jose, 408 997 3195. I dont remember if he is visible by doing a function key or shift function key but certainly is if you read the help files outside of the program with say, the type command. John -- John Gates | Amateur Radio: N7BTI Edmonds, WA USA | Internet: jgates@hebron.connected.com 206 774-3777 | Compuserve: 72106,367 ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 94 16:44:32 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!pitstop.mcd.mot.com!mcdphx!schbbs!waters.corp.mot.com.corp.mot.com!user@ucbvax.berkeley.edu To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu References , , <1994Mar1.153612.21625@ke4zv.atl.ga.us>ã Subject : Re: Using packet radio to access an internet account... In article <1994Mar1.153612.21625@ke4zv.atl.ga.us>, gary@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman) wrote: > In article rcrw90@email.mot.com (Mike Waters) writes: > Obscenity is in the eye of the beholder as the Supreme Court has repeatedly > ruled. Thus the "community standards" tests required for something to be > declared obscene. Simple profanity is no longer illegal in any state. > Vulgarity is haphazardly regulated in different jurisdictions, but always > *only in public*. Private communications containing profanity, vulgarity, > and even obscenity are protected speech as long as both parties to the > conversation consent. "Obscene" phone calls are really a misnomer. What's > covered under these statutes is more appropriately called *harassing* phone > calls where one party is an unwilling participant. I don't want to do a Westlaw search on this, but in the last round of the pornography hysteria there have been a whole bunch of regulkations issued about "indecent" speech. Not tested in court as far as I know, but (IMHO) the really objectionable part is an attempt to extend this to private telephone conversations. This subject is often debated on soc.motss since these laws are often used to harass homosexuals in various ways. Sorry I don't have any more specific references to cite right now. > The FCC has ruled that broadcast radio transmissions, including amateur, > but *not* common carrier, are always considered *public* utterances with > possible "unwilling" listeners. Thus the prohibitions against utterances > that are offensive to the listener community are justified. The FCC has > issued guidance in the form of the "7 deadly words" that must never be > uttered over the airwaves, and following Supreme Court guidance, the FCC > has also prohibited speech referring to excretory or sexual practices. > There are no corresponding limitations on point to point common carrier > content. This indeed was the rule until circa 1991. > Common carrier and > voluntary private conversations and correspondence fall under the > area of protected speech. Public utterances and writings fall under > varying sets of restrictions depending on where, when, and how they > are made. The FCC's "broadcast" interpretation is the strictest of > these limits. Those who would protect our tender ears from such things delight in pointing out that the first amendment is not absolute and that truly "protected speed" only applies to "legitimate" political debate. In practice this often means subjects approved by those in power. For example the "man boy love association" and the harrassment they have received for trying to voice their views. (Not that I think they have merit, but they are supposed to have the right to expressthose views). I really don't want to get into a Libertarian debate here, I will leave that to those who have a burning interest in suchthings (see my .sig - I really mean it :-) -- Phooey on it all - I'm going sailing for a year or two!!! ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 94 16:52:53 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!asuvax!pitstop.mcd.mot.com!mcdphx!schbbs!waters.corp.mot.com.corp.mot.com!user@ucbvax.berkeley.edu To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu References <1994Mar1.154410.21850@ke4zv.atl.ga.us>, <2l0qv9$dhi@hermes.acs.ryerson.ca>, <1994Mar2.074757.26277@ke4zv.atl.ga.us> Subject : Re: megabit per second packet (was "Re: Packet at 1.2 GHz (23cm)?") In article <1994Mar2.074757.26277@ke4zv.atl.ga.us>, gary@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman) wrote: > (1) Only the following sets of connections may be used: > > Number of stages Taps used > in the shift register in feedback > > 7 7,1 > 13 13,4,3,1 > 19 19,5,2,1 [...] > Well, whomp there it is! Clear as mud isn't it? What the rules don't make clear is that shift registers in various combinations can generate some interesting sequences which don't repeat for a very long time. The ones allowed by the rules are "short sequence" codes which repeat fairly often, thus it is not difficult (comparitively speaking) for the FCC to find and monitor the transmission. Last time I studied the question (>15 years ago :-), the publically available theory wasn't very helpfull in predicting the lengths of the sequences and their "randomness". Still an interesting area for "tinkering". -- Phooey on it all - I'm going sailing for a year or two!!! ------------------------------ End of Ham-Digital Digest V94 #62 ******************************