Huggins Did It!

That doesn’t have anything to do with it does it?

As I have repeatedly cited in my writings, the claim was that WINLINK was unique.

That it alone could not be read.

There was no claim that depended on the amount of usage.

I am simply testing that claim for due diligence in finding that it was inadequate. One person alleged that terrorists could use such a system. Obviously, that does not have any dependence on the amount of usage by others!

So please now support your claims.

 

I gave him the chance to prove his assertions, and he declined. Therefore we are left to assume that my effort was superior or equivalent to anything that he could do. But perhaps his assertions had a different purpose Who can know?

 

I feel insulted - simply because it's a repetition of the insult Rappaport made.
Using the same kind of language and to accuse me without mentioning reasons
is very disappointing.
Just because somebody writes a ham newsletter, he does not have the right
to insult other people.

You sacrificed hundreds of hours of free time for your studies and programming -
and what did this person do to clarify the facts? It's about a change in the law that
affects not only modem manufacturers, but all radio amateurs, especially in the US,
but it can also have long term global implications.
Honestly, I am slightly annoyed - and I reported the incident to QRZ.

73 de Peter

 

I’m providing you just one place where this assertion was made, and it is faulty.

I am in the process of investigating to see if there is further proof that it is faulty.

If you can’t find a way to read appendix five, then you have provided the first bit of proof of its faultiness from your end

It’s very simple, they said WINLINK was unique; I don’t think that’s correct

It has nothing to do with frequency or usage. It’s a simple claim and I believe it is faulty ; and I believe it reveals a failure of due diligence

So now please perform your tests.

 

So Today, I have D-RATS once again brought up on this computer. It has been more than a year since we investigated this once-popular mode. It will take me a bit to figure it out again, but it appears that I got it interfaced to soundmodem.com in the past, which can easily do HF Packet....and it also seems to have the ability to transfer FILES.....and back when machhines went to 64 bits., there was a huge twitter in the D-RATS community because they had to change their (you guessed it! *LZHUF* in order to keep it working!

So I'll be betting that once I have it moving files over HF begtween two machines, that I can capture the compressed text with soundmodem and demonstrate that DRATS has no clue what to do with TWO TRANSMITTERS....and I don't even see a place where to input anything....because it is used to getting stuff from (connected mode) SOUNDMODEM.

This will be interesting. It will be my THIRD system to evaluate.
Gordon

 

I bet you will not be able to read the compressed data as an eavesdropper!

I can not remember that such monitoring software ever existed. Even at the time when Packet Radio was still very popular
and a lot of FBB file compression was seen especially on VHF, but also on shortwave, there was no such thing. Strangely,
nobody was upset about that at this time. Apparently, the whole thing has something to do with "e-mail"?? The whole
annoyance probably comes from the fact that you can exchange e-mails via Winlink - or what is it all about?
I have not really understood it yet, what's the difference to the past?

 

Its pure and unadulterated Jealousy. Nothing more nothing less...


73 Jerry N9LYA

 

"Email" is key here Peter. In comparison to other ways of moving messages...

• NTS(d) has a lot more hammy eyes on the message validating compliance with our Part 97,
• Good ol' BPQ32 (or FBBS) messaging is ham to ham messaging so hammy eyes again,
• Thrift on message size in the Packet/BBS world is always a parameter of importance as hams know the modulation/speed limits and think of them before sending War and Peace,
• In short, geeks are in charge of inserting and shepherding messages on the above systems using the very same modulation techniques (such as Pactor) as the WL system. Geeks in charge = NBD.

This isn't to suggest there haven't been sins as the 1991 case of the anti-war message on the packet network mentioned earlier highlights for us. That said, connection with the general email network (using any method whatsoever) too easily abstracts away the notions of speed, content, etc. that has certainly helped move a notable share of un-compliant messages across the ham bands. As well the notion of sizing a message to be most agreeable to the band/mode used is completely absent. Winlink's rather enormous message size limit applied across the bands from DC to daylight just doesn't make much sense for example.

I should note the technical aspects of the Winlink system aren't wrong or bad or evil, it's just the way us humans use such services. If all Winlink users took a step back from the abstraction layer the Winlink software provides today, all the various problems go away tomorrow. Unfortunately when you design a system that successfully emulates an everyday commercial Internet application, it's just too easy to press "send" without much thought for what you are sending. A great many hams have no problems with discipline, but enough do to cause problems for all.

So this is really about how fallen humans have mis-used technology in the pursuit of convenience. Winlink created a monster unwittingly and then the WL community (not Winlink itself) set about to defend "some" of the misuses rather than address them (recent months excepted of course). The collateral damage suffered by Pactor, BPQ32 and other systems is a direct result of those leveraging the WL debacle for their personal distaste of unrelated modes/methods/whathaveyou. The folks doing this range from the technically challenged to erudite engineering professors. Stunning.

 

LOTS of wisdom there!!!!

Honesty is a wonderful thing, and openness also. When the winlink people put out their free distributed, networked, receiver, I was really impressed that they were quite serious at making it very easy to "clean up" all the issues -- and Ron et al., did fabulous work at joining right in on that effort! I read the messages sent to those "caught" and was very impressed at the professionalism...and my data demonstrated astonishing success.

The winlink folks work with everything from 200 Hz to multi-kilometer microwave links, so the 120kB limit is a middle ground, perhaps it should be adjusted for different bands? Donno....in my city, we have two microwave links, one of which is linked to a 1200 baud AX.25. could you completely overload the AX.25 with a microwave delivered message? SURE! But smart people need to be thinking. More -- much more -- care in whom you put on your whitelist is very very important. I tried to email someone and discovered I *was not* on their whitelist --- some folks have thought this through.

Although not required to at all by law, the WINLINK Devel. Team clearly saw the advantage of enforcing their stringent Terms with more and more software. A veery very good idea!!!! Commendable. I don't think people grasp at all HOW MUCH WORK was needed to merely build and maintain this system. Perhaps the WDT needs to be more inclusive, expand, get more helpers? Dunno --- I had one person write me with excellent concerns and suggestions there.. But *I* certaily never built anything this huge and amazing, and I'm hesitant to be screaming for anything of people who are so so so far ahead of anyone else.

A really wise person is very careful what complaints and suggestions he brings to people who are SO far ahead of him in what they know and have built, both in technology and in volunteers. I don't go telling the Red Cross how they fouled such-and-such up. I just don't have sufficient standing, so I speak carefully.

 

May I offer another anecdote, this time from the diplomatic world.
For some years, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ran a HF based email system based on the Collins Mediaware concept.
This was fundamentally limited to 2400 bps "on a sunny day".

A former colleague from my ship's radio days was in charge of running the system, and he also had the "misfortune"
of living two blocks away from the office.

At very inconvenient hours, his telephone could ring, and the officer-in-charge at the MFA was in the other end, complaining that
the whole e-mail system had ground to a halt. He had just to get out to the computer room, log in and clear the message queues,
where it more often than not was found that some clerk had decided to send the vacation picture album over HF e-mail.
This is some kind of "story with a moral", that it is quite unwise trying to force very large objects through narrow pipes...

This one of the reasons why this looks so bad from an international perspective.
What US amateurs do to each other, and with their relations to the FCC is their business,
but it may eventually result in setting amateur radio into a "bad light" on the international scene.
When the FCC finally löses patience with amateur radio, they may as well tell their "buddies" in other
Region 2 Administrations and the "slippery slope" starts at the CITEL and ITU.

We rest on "old laurels", and nothing is so easy as destroying a reputation.

73/
Karl-Arne
SM0AOM