Date: Sun, 10 Apr 94 04:30:13 PDT 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 #107 To: Ham-Digital Ham-Digital Digest Sun, 10 Apr 94 Volume 94 : Issue 107 Today's Topics: Ham-Digital Digest V94 #102 JNOS vs. WNOS ?? sexually explicit talk TAPR TAPR File server 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: 7 Apr 94 18:38:24 GMT From: news-mail-gateway@ucsd.edu Subject: Ham-Digital Digest V94 #102 To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu Your message was received at 04/08/94 5:25pm ----- The following address had delivery problems ----- STROHS (User does not exist) From: Ham-Digital Mailing List and Newsgroup Subject: Ham-Digital Digest V94 #102 Date: Fri, 8 Apr 94 02:38:24 PDT To: To: strohs@strohpub.com Message-Id: <199404080938.CAA05222@ucsd.edu> ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 94 16:07:44 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!demon!dakevar.demon.co.uk!duncan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: JNOS vs. WNOS ?? To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu In article <764557213.AA00617@afarm.uucp> Ted.Cross@f40.n382.z1.fidonet.org writes: >Organization: MicroLithics Corp. > > >Hi there es tnx fer reading this. > >I've been a user of WNOS for some time and NOS before that. I've noticed >references to JNOS. I've had a quick look around one or two sites but >not found much info on JNOS. Has anyone out there got any insight into >the differences between WNOS and JNOS and which is better, I assume JNOS >is the new kid on the block and potentially the next generation!! Ted, We've been using WNOS4 for some time at GB7SIG and had no problems until we had a sudden increase in user activity. When the mail activity got large WNOS could not cope. We tried the beta version of WNOS5 but this seems to suffer from the same problem. We are now trying to set up JNOS but are having lots!!! of trouble. Short answer is, if its for your own BBS then WNOS4 is great. JNOS needs more work to get the setup right. I have JNOS working at home but there seems to be a problem with memory. The mailer does not work at present, probably because of the lack of memory so watch this space. I look forward to your comments and perhaps info from other areas. Best regards & 73's Duncan R Goodacre G7EXG ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 1994 04:31:12 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!insosf1.infonet.net!usenet@network.ucsd.edu Subject: sexually explicit talk To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu In article <765776764snx@skyld.grendel.com>, jangus@skyld.grendel.com (Jeffrey D. Angus) writes: >I found this over on rec.radio.amateur.packet. THought someone might wish to >give him a hand. > >In article bgould@iat.holonet.net writes: > > > > > Dear anyone, > > I don't have a liscense, but I bought a ham radio recently and was thining > > about opening sexually explicit gay chatline through info packets over the > > air. Is there any way the government could monitor these conversations, > > as some of them could possibly involve underage men. If anyone is > > inerested in subscribing to my packet service, feel free to contact me or > > DeanSf@aol.com. > > > > Thanx, > > > > bgould@holonet.net > > > > > Amateur: WA6FWI@WA6FWI.#SOCA.CA.USA.NOAM | "You have a flair for adding >Internet: jangus@skyld.grendel.com | a fanciful dimension to any > US Mail: PO Box 4425 Carson, CA 90749 | story." > Phone: 1 (310) 324-6080 | Peking Noodle Co. > Hey! April 1st has passed us by! 73, Bill; W0OMV ax25: w0omv@wr9b.#wcil.il.usa.noam tcpip: w0omv.ampr.org [44.50.32.5] Internet: billh@ins.infonet.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Apr 1994 15:04:34 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!noc.near.net!das-news.harvard.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!news@network.ucsd.edu Subject: TAPR To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu The previosuly posted instructions for accessing TAPR's list server are incorrect. The proper address is "file-request@tapr.org". Don't send file requests to tapr@tapr.org! Mike Blackwell -- ke3ig -- mkb@cs.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 94 18:29:49 GMT From: news-mail-gateway@ucsd.edu Subject: TAPR File server To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu It looks like I goofed in a message I sent out the other day. The file server at TAPR can be reached at the address file-request@tapr.org. To get the help file and a list of available files, send a message to file-request@tapr.org In the body of the message, type the lines: help dir quit The information will be sent to you. A reply-to line in your header will help in cases where the return information is hard to decipher. The address given previously, tapr@tapr.org goes to a human who will be glad to take your orders or process membership applications, etc., but cannot send you the requested files. This can only be done by the file robot. ------------------ Bob Nielsen, W6SWE Internet: w6swe@tapr.org Tucson, AZ Amateur IP: 44.124.12.16 ax.25: w6swe@wb7tls.az.usa.na ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 1994 21:04:56 GMT From: news.mentorg.com!hpbab33.mentorg.com!wv.mentorg.com!hanko@uunet.uu.net To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu References , <2nuqbe$omj@hpbab.mentorg.com>, <2nvfu0$1ve@ccnet.ccnet.com> Reply-To : Hank_Oredson@mentorg.com Subject : Re: NTS traffic on packet In article <2nvfu0$1ve@ccnet.ccnet.com>, rwilkins@ccnet.com (Bob Wilkins n6fri) writes: |> Hank Oredson (hanko@wv.mentorg.com) wrote: |> |> : What would prevent duplicates or lost messages? |> : How would you accomplish this? Remember we don't have a "fixed |> : configuration" network. We don't have reliable paths. We do have multiple |> |> I don't understand. There are fixed routes in and out of any full service bbs. Now I'm confused. How are these routes fixed? What happens when a forwarding partner goes off air? What happens when a node goes down? How are backup routes handled? I see "fixed routes" on a hour to hour basis, but not on a year to year basis. Often, not even on a week to week basis. |> The HF routes may seasonally change and require manual assistence. |> What is going to happen if the BBS protocol is allowed to be the rule on |> the DASH digital amateur super highway. It is my understanding that the |> proposal for the 219 MHz 56kb DASH will require point to point auxiliary |> operation. Will the bbs protocol work in this new arena? Well ... the bbs authors don't care much - this is just data transport. Bytes get from point A to pont B, not important how they get there. i.e. it has nothing to do with the bbs protocol. |> Maybe the answer is to make the 219 MHz DASH a tcp/ip network and put the |> bbs mail traffic into for safe transport across the network. I |> would like to see some more discussion on the future implementation of |> this new network. That is what we already do, but with other protocols: AX.25, NET/ROM, CLOVER, AMTOR, PACTOR, whatever. tcp/ip as tranport protocol has not made much inroad in the bbs network, for various reasons. It really does not matter what transport protocol is used, the bbs system does not care. |> Has anyone done any traffic analysis of bbs messages? Are the bulk of the |> messages two or three hops? With the increase in network speed will the |> message flow naturally increase? Will my bbs mail reading program be able |> to keep up with the vast number of bulletins that will be arriving? I |> realize that I will be reading at 1200 for quite some time ... maybe 9600 |> if the bbs operators will provide this service. Yes, much traffic analysis. The bulk of message traffic is "many hop". At each increase in network capability to date, traffic has increased to saturate the new capability within a short time. I already have users at 9600 baud, and they are asking for faster response ... At least in the PNW, traffic has been running roughly equal volume (in bytes) between personal and bulletins, with twice as many personal messages as bulletins flowing through the system. One thing to think about though: we have two different services represented by the existing bbs network. There are single sender to single recipient messages (e.g. personal messages) and also single sender to multiple recipient messages (e.g. bulletins). We now tend to handle these messages types a little differently - mostly by giving some priority to the personal messages. Whatever transport mechanism we use will make little difference to the day to day operation of a bbs system though - the messages will come in, they will go out, users will send and read them. |> Sorry Hank, I am not a network guru, just your average packet user. |> |> Bob |> |> |> : -- |> |> : Hank Oredson @ Mentor Graphics |> : Internet : hank_oredson@mentorg.com |> : Amateur Radio: W0RLI@W0RLI.OR.USA.NOAM |> |> |> |> -- |> Bob Wilkins work bwilkins@cave.org |> Berkeley, California home rwilkins@ccnet.com |> 94701-0710 play n6fri@n6eeg.#nocal.ca.usa.noam -- Hank Oredson @ Mentor Graphics Internet : hank_oredson@mentorg.com Amateur Radio: W0RLI@W0RLI.OR.USA.NOAM ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 18:53:46 GMT From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!psinntp!psinntp!arrl.org!jbloom@ames.arpa To: ham-digital@ucsd.edu References <01HATOE2L7VM91WF9U@stthomas.edu>, <1994Apr6.214215.2580@arrl.org>, et Subject : Re: GTOR INFO Paul Williamson (williams@maui.qualcomm.com) wrote: : jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom (KE3Z)) writes: : >This is true. it might have been better had G-TOR stuck to a 200-baud : >upper limit. We have enough wide-bandwidth signals on the bands now. : At least G-TOR only upshifts to 300-baud when it has enough data to : justify it. It doesn't take up the wider bandwidth unless it needs to. : I don't see anything wrong with taking up bandwidth as long as you're : not wasting it. Well, there are two problems. The first is that many radios have as their available filter selections 2.1 kHz (or so) and 500 Hz. A 300-baud, 200-Hz-shift signal really needs a wider filter than 500 Hz. So 300-baud operators (like existing HF packet ops) tend to use their SSB filters. Then they can't tolerate interference on adjacent channels because the interfering signals fall within their filter passbands, so they space out to 2-kHz separation. In this case, these stations *are* effectively taking up bandwidth that they aren't really using. The second problem is that in an environment in which signals are not subbanded (if that's a word) by transmission mode, the use of signals of different widths make sharing the spectrum more difficult. -- Jon Bloom KE3Z jbloom@arrl.org ------------------------------ End of Ham-Digital Digest V94 #107 ******************************