HAM Radio 1/HamRadio.cdr/packet/packpro2/pd91035.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-02-06 | 23KB

From wang!elf.wang.com!ucsd.edu!packet-radio-relay Wed Feb  6 15:58:34 1991 remote from tosspot
Received: by tosspot (1.63/waf)
    via UUCP; Thu, 07 Feb 91 07:01:57 EST
    for lee
Received: from somewhere by elf.wang.com id aa11640; Wed, 6 Feb 91 15:58:32 GMT
Received: from ucsd.edu by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
    id AA15013; Wed, 6 Feb 91 09:54:05 -0500
Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA20319
    sendmail 5.64/UCSD-2.1-sun
    Wed, 6 Feb 91 04:30:12 -0800 for hpbbrd!db0sao!dg4scv
Received: by ucsd.edu; id AA20312
    sendmail 5.64/UCSD-2.1-sun
    Wed, 6 Feb 91 04:30:08 -0800 for /usr/lib/sendmail -oc -odb -oQ/var/spool/lqueue -oi -fpacket-radio-relay packet-radio-list
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed,  6 Feb 91 04:30:04 PST
From: Packet-Radio Mailing List and Newsgroup </dev/[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Packet-Radio Digest V91 #35
To: [e-mail]


Packet-Radio Digest         Wed,  6 Feb 91       Volume 91 : Issue  35

Today's Topics:
                    'To:' field anarchy! (3 msgs)
                  Internet->packet Gateway (3 msgs)
            KA9Q NOS for the Commodore Amiga availability
                  PACKET->Internet Gateway (3 msgs)
                 The FCC, the rules, and us (longish)

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Packet-Radio Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/packet-radio".

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: Mon, 04 Feb 91 13:58:20 GMT
From: "Pete Lucas, NCS-TLC, Holbrook House, Swindon" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 'To:' field anarchy!
To: [e-mail]

Greetings; i have recently been having a battle of wits :-) with a lot of
users in the UK who seem intent on addressing their messages to 'ALL@GBR'
or some similarly uninformative destination. I have done a count  of the
messages on several BBS; something around 30-40% of messages are sent to
'ALL' !!!
I rarely bother to read those messages addressed to 'ALL' from users
who further alienate their intended audience by putting something totally
uninformative (like 'HELP') as the only thing in the 'Subject:' field.

I have been trying to draw up a list of preferred 'To:' fields so that
people can make best use of the limited addressability they have in headers,
and so obtain the best targetting of their messages to the intended
audience. Nothing i am doing is aimed at producing a 'restricted'
list, purely a list showing common usages for the benefits of others.
Also note that my list will include popular European variants of 'All'
depending on national language variations.
I was wondering - what is the normal procedure in the States and the rest
of the world for these sorts of thing.... Do you have the usual 'to' fields
anarchy, or are there 'preferred' ones as well as ALL ????
And what do you do to those users who send 'local' news  (regarding club
meets etc) to ALL@WWW. (you know, it arrives in Tasmania six weeks after the
event took place)    There must be a special place in Hell for these people.

     Pete Lucas [e-mail]   or  [e-mail]

(Please reply via the List, or via Internet/Bitnet; my mailer has just been
   attacked by the Data Loss Monster who eats anything with a '!' in the path)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 91 03:37:43 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!matt.ksu.ksu.edu![e-mail]  (Steve Schallehn)
Subject: 'To:' field anarchy!
To: [e-mail]

In the 9th Amateur Radio Networking Conference (Sorry, I don't remember the
official name), there was a paper presented on using netnews for packet
radio.  Perhaps someone could post a copy if they have a chance.

I feel this sort of 'segmentization' is going to be extremely important
for message distribution continuing in packet radio.

-Steve Schallehn, KB0AGD
 Kansas State University

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 91 13:37:31 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!acorn![e-mail]  (Adrian Godwin)
Subject: 'To:' field anarchy!
To: [e-mail]

In article <04.Feb.91.14:12:43.GMT.#[e-mail]> [e-mail]
  ("Pete Lucas, NCS-TLC, Holbrook House, Swindon") writes:
>Greetings; i have recently been having a battle of wits :-) with a lot of
>users in the UK who seem intent on addressing their messages to 'ALL@GBR'
>or some similarly uninformative destination. I have done a count  of the
>messages on several BBS; something around 30-40% of messages are sent to
>'ALL' !!!

You hero!

However, I feel the real problem is due to the use of a mail-like interface
for bulletin traffic. It isn't sufficient just to reduce the use of ALL,
but also (as you show by your suggestion of a preferred list) to limit
bulletin 'destinations' to a number of names that are universally
recognised, rather than using the field as a sort of summarised subject.

It surprises me that this hasn't already happened, as many packet users
(and more especially packet BBS writers) must also be familiar with telephone
BBSs and surely appreciate the advantages of grouping bulletins in an
_intentionally_ restricted list of areas.

I'd therefore suggest that you tackle the BBS writers to provide categories
to which bulletins may be addressed. In order to provide maximum anarchy -
if that's how the users like it - I'd suggest that a message _could_ be
written to a previously unknown group, but it would result in a warning
to the effect "Nobody's ever heard of this subject. Post somewhere else if
you want your bulletin to have a fighting chance of being read".

When all the poorly-directed dross falls into the ALL area, it will become
so boring that nobody will read it. Enterprising BBS writers might care to
time out subjects that are either never written to or never read ...


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Godwin                                        ([e-mail])

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 91 00:11:57 GMT
From: drago.tgv.com![e-mail]  (Sam Sjogren)
Subject: Internet->packet Gateway
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Kantor) writes...
>They way I plan (someday, in my copious free time) to implement an
>internet<->packet mail gateway is actually rather simple:  traffic from
>the ham side to the internet is not restricted, except for the odd
>callsign on the idiot list.  Traffic from the internet to the ham side
>is filtered; it must be from a mailbox (i.e., contents of the FROM
>line) that is on my list of known hams, which is built by observation
>and registration.

It's terribly trivial to create fake mail.  I can send mail to you
with just about anything in the From: line, using SMTP over TCP.
Perhaps this would be a case where we'd need authenticated mail,
with some sort of public-key crypto-authentication system being
used.  A conversation I had in December with Phil seemed to indicate
that using cryptography for the purpose of authentication, as opposed
to hiding the meaning of the message thru encryption of a message's
contents, was not illegal under FCC rules, so the authentication
data could even be conveyed along with the text of the message to
provide end-to-end authentication even across the packet link(s).
Of course, the strength of the authentication is only as secure as
the person's private key's secrecy, but it may provide a high enough
degree of authentication to make the FCC happy.  I could see an
Internet->Ampr gateway allowing someone to log in over the Internet
and then hop out over packet, with the person logged in having to
be a ham to be allowed by the software to do this.  Direct TCP
connections, or the passing of random IP packets, from Internet to
packet are a bit harder, as I guess that you'd have to make the
superuser of a particular machine (as designated by the IP address
of a packet) be considered the control operator; you'd want to
have control on that machine of just who was able to send IP
packets to the Internet->packet gateway, and the gateway would
have to restrict the routing of IP packets to radio links to those
from an approved list of ham-operated Internet hosts.  It looks
doable, but probably would be messy to implement.

-Sam, WB6RJH

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 91 06:08:55 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Brian Kantor)
Subject: Internet->packet Gateway
To: [e-mail]

<description of forging mail, encryption, etc included by reference>

I would hope that it's only necessary to make a good-faith effort to
ensure that the sender is a ham.  There is no way to be absolutely sure;
it's only a question of how much effort you have to put forth to keep
the pharisees happy.
    - Brian

P.S.  There's a wonderful invention called the paragraph.  People who
employ it often find that readers enjoy their writings more.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 91 06:08:47 GMT
From: tgv.com![e-mail]  (Sam Sjogren)
Subject: Internet->packet Gateway
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Kantor) writes...
><description of forging mail, encryption, etc included by reference>
>
>I would hope that it's only necessary to make a good-faith effort to
>ensure that the sender is a ham.  There is no way to be absolutely sure;
>it's only a question of how much effort you have to put forth to keep
>the pharisees happy.

I'd love to be able to operate on this basis, in general.  I'm a
big fan of honour systems.  However, if the asshole bureaucrats
are going to be, well, assholes, it's good to know that you can
come up with the technology to allow connectivity to continue
despite the legal requirements.  We have the technology, let's
hope that we're not forced to use it.

Btw, I find the FCC BBS citations offensive and scary.  I hope
that they're overturned.

>    - Brian
>

-me

>P.S.  There's a wonderful invention called the paragraph.  People who
>employ it often find that readers enjoy their writings more.

Well excuuuuuse my train of thought, and I'll excuse your pedancy!  >B-}

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 91 05:05:41 GMT
From: haven!ni.umd.edu!sayshell.umd.edu![e-mail]  (Louis A. Mamakos)
Subject: KA9Q NOS for the Commodore Amiga availability
To: [e-mail]

Contrary to what is published in this month's QST in the Packet
Perspectives column, I am NOT a source for the KA9Q NOS for the Amiga.
Heck, I'm not an ARRL member and don't even receive QST.  Imagine my
suprise when I started getting these mysterious phone calls "about the
packet article in QST."

I am selling off my Amiga system, and no longer have facilities for
copying Amiga disks.  Can only support one computer toy (now a
NeXTstation) at a time...

I've already received a number of phone calls from amateurs who read
that article, and I'm hoping to save others spending a few dollars in
long distance charges to talk to my answering machine.

I wish authors would try to check this type of information before
publishing it, as I have NEVER offered to to diskette distribution of
the code that I ported even when I did have the facilities to do so..
I suspect people will "discover" this incorrect information in the
article for years to come.  Oh well.

As far as I know, the latest work being done on the Amiga version of NOS
is being done by John Heaton, G1YYH, who started with my version and
added his own changes.  I point folks at thumper.bellcore.com in the
anonymous FTP directory /pub/ka9q/amiga for the distributions.  Or, you
might try to contact the author:

    John Heaton, G1YYH

    Janet:     [e-mail]           MCC Network Unit (g111)
    DARPA:     [e-mail]           The University
    AX.25:     g1yyh @ gb7nwp.gbr.eu        Oxford Road
          or   g1yyh @ gb7crg.gbr.eu        Manchester       M13 9PL
    Ampr:      amiga.G1YYH.ampr.org         England
               [44.131.1.71]

for other information about his version.

73,
Louis Mamakos
WA3YMH

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 91 18:52:24 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!helios!photon![e-mail]  (Willis Marti)
Subject: PACKET->Internet Gateway
To: [e-mail]

Jon,
  You gave a relatively reasoned response and I'd like to respond.  But
before I do, let me say why I believe Internet gateways (i.e., routers)
can be legal, even assuming you're 100% correct.

First, there are three major services (among many) that are part of the
TCP/IP suite that we'd like to use:
--TELNET {connection to a host}
--FTP {file transfer}
--SMTP {email}
For all except SMTP, it is easy to configure a router so that no one on the
Internet side can initiate a connection.  I then claim that since an
amateur would be initiating the host session and/or file transfer, that
passing traffic back and forth thru the router is within the rules.
For SMTP, one needs a cooperating host on the Internet (a POPmail server)
and the ham can initiate reception of his own email.
If the routing is done by a host, then only one machine is necessary --
though most hosts don't, by default, support the kind of filtering
necessary to prevent Internet initiated connections.

Is that satisfactory?
   Willis Marti
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jon Bloom) writes:
[much quoted material deleted, mostly asserting that repeater operation
  is not comparable to Internet gateway operation - wfm]

|> repeater is explicitly allowed [see 97.205(d)].  In the case of the
|> cross-band repeater with an output on 10m, the Technician cannot be
|> the control operator.  Fortunately, since a repeater is allowed to
|> be under automatic control, no control operator is needed.  But if

I'll go back and read, but are you saying the rules explicitly say that an
amateur operator can work frequencies on which he doesn't have
privileges, as long as he goes through a repeater belonging to someone else?
Or is that your interpretation?

[more things deleted]

|>
|> At the risk of (once again) being accused of being a technology-bashing,
|> Luddite, ARRL old fart, let me try to (once again) explain how it is that
|> the existing rules unfortunately prohibit unattended Internet->AMPR
|> gateways.

I'd recommend a couple of books that might help you understand the
differences in technology, and what can be done to alleviate concerns
instead of just saying "It can't be done.":

_Internetworking with TCP/IP_ (1st or 2d edition) by Douglas Comer
_Computer Networks_ (2d edition) by Andrew S. Tanenbaum

|> 97.109(e) allows packet stations operating above 50 MHz to pass third-
|> party traffic under automatic control, but "The retransmitted messages
|> must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled."
|> Even worse, messages originated by non-hams (where the notion of a control
|> operator can't possibly be stretched to cover the originator) surely come
|> under the requirements of 97.115(b) which states in part:
|>
|> (b) The third party may participate in stating the message where:
|>    (1) The control operator is present at the control point and is
|>        continuously *monitoring* and supervising the third party's
|>        participation.  [Emphasis mine.]

I think you're stretching it here, unless you consider retrieval of stored, machine readable data to be the same as a live person talking into the mike.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Feb 91 23:33:15 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu![e-mail]  (Meir)
Subject: PACKET->Internet Gateway
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jon Bloom) writes:
>
>This means that, under the current rules, you have to monitor (read)
>the data being sent by the Internet participant.  A bit difficult in
>an IP gateway!
>
Unfortunately, also impossible on high speed AMATEUR data links.
I forsee many legal problems related to that in the near future.
>--
>Jon Bloom, KE3Z                              | American Radio Relay League
>Internet: [e-mail]         |
>Snail:    225 Main St., Newington, CT 06111  | "I have no opinions."

 * * * * * * *  ======================= Meir Green
* * * * * * * * ======================= [e-mail]
 * * * * * * *  ======================= N2JPG

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 91 18:11:38 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Brian Kantor)
Subject: PACKET->Internet Gateway
To: [e-mail]



------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 91 04:53:40 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!turnkey!orchard.la.locus.com!fafnir.la.locus.com![e-mail]  (Dana H. Myers)
Subject: The FCC, the rules, and us (longish)
To: [e-mail]

   As many other amateurs are, I'm concerned about the recent
report of citations issued to the operators of automatic Bulletin
Board Systems which automatically forwarded a message with illegal
content. The issue I am concerned about is NOT that of freedom of
speech and selective enforcement of the law by the FCC.

[ For those not aware, several operators of packet BBSes on the
  East coast were recently reported to be cited for the content of
  a message soliciting business for an anti-war organization. Though
  the operators of the BBSes did not originate the message, their
  stations transmitted it ]


  I see several issues at play:

-> The message appears to be a truly illegal solicition of money.

    The content of the message, as described by a trustworthy source,
  appears to be solicitation of business for a non-amateur radio
  related organization. The rules have always been clear with regards
  to business activity on amateur radio - it is illegal. I don't wish to
  raise the issue of "what is business activity?" here; I think it is
  clear the content of the message in question is outside the bounds
  of what is acceptable. (Frankly, I'm surprised at how many advertisments
  I see on packet where someone has several radios at a time for sale....).

-> The message appears anti-war in nature

    Granted. The message appears anti-war. The reported citations are not
  for 'treasonous activity' or the like; the poster can pretty much say what
  he wants as long as he doesn't cuss or ask for money.

-> It appears the FCC is cracking down on anti-war activity

    I doubt the FCC normally cares. I doubt the FCC normally monitors
  packet radio (or any other amateur service).  The FCC appears to want
  amateur radio to 'take care of itself'. My guess is that some *RADIO
  AMATEUR* read that illegal message, and that *RADIO AMATEUR* didn't
  like the commercial nature, and that *RADIO AMATEUR* called the FCC
  up. Furthermore, my guess is that the FCC official who reviewed this
  case decided the message path indicated this illegal message had been
  transmitted from a multiple number of stations. The rules do not
  distinguish between 'originate' and 'transmit'; therefore, everyone
  who transmitted this message is technically in violation of the
  law.

-> The FCC rules are deficient.

    Currently, the FCC rules do not distinguish between what an operator
  does and a machine does. In all cases, the operator is responsible for
  what is transmitted from a station, though automatic operation is
  allowed. We've had automatic stations for years; conventional repeaters
  are no different than packet BBSes with regards to the ability to
  transmit illegal traffic. What has been different, however, is the
  response of the FCC; when was the last time a repeater operator was
  cited for the activities of a jammer? While I am certain such a thing
  is possible, I've never heard of this case.

-> The rules need to relax.

    The notion of origination in automatic service needs to be
  formalized. Originators of illegal traffic should be held liable;
  operators of automatic stations who make a 'good faith' effort
  to prevent illegal operation should not be held liable. Origination
  the intentional transmission of a message. Forwarding is the
  automatic re-transmission of a message. In general, a human
  originates; for instance, playing a tape of an illegal message
  over the local repeater would be origination; the repeater in
  question would be forwarding the message (an intermediate issue
  is that of a human who knowingly allows illegal traffic to be
  forwarded - I would think, in the case this is proved, this would
  count as origination).

-> Amateurs need to relax

    We are basically our own police. If we can't handle things on
  our own, there is no reason to believe the FCC can handle things
  any better. If you see an illegal message on a BBS, CONTACT THE
  INVOLVED PARTIES **BEFORE** CALLING THE FCC!!  Don't just run
  off and call Big Brother! I'm certain some ham thought he was
  doing amateur radio a favor to report the anti-war solicitation of
  money. Think, for a moment, about a parent who really doesn't want
  to be bothered. Consider, for a moment, the errant child and the
  righteous sibling. We've all see this; the righteous sibling goes
  to tattle and the parents, annoyed at the irritation, punish BOTH
  children. THIS WILL HAPPEN TO US!


  Think this over. We can help shape the amateur radio service of the
next millenia if we act now to petition the FCC to modernize the concepts
used in the rules. If we just squabble and act self-righteously, we'll
ALSO shape our service; likely the same way 220-222 Mhz is shaped.


--
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ         | Views expressed here are    *
 * [phone]         | mine and do not necessarily    *
 * [e-mail]        | reflect those of my employer    *

------------------------------

End of Packet-Radio Digest
******************************