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: <9102061230.AA20312@ucsd.edu> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 04:30:04 PST From: Packet-Radio Mailing List and Newsgroup Reply-To: Packet-Radio@ucsd.edu Subject: Packet-Radio Digest V91 #35 To: packet-radio@ucsd.edu 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: Send subscription requests to: Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. 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" Subject: 'To:' field anarchy! To: PACKET-RADIO@UCSD.edu 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 PJML@UK.AC.NWL.IA or G6WBJ@GB7SDN.GBR.EU (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!steve@handies.ucar.edu (Steve Schallehn) Subject: 'To:' field anarchy! To: packet-radio@ucsd.edu 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!agodwin@uunet.uu.net (Adrian Godwin) Subject: 'To:' field anarchy! To: packet-radio@ucsd.edu In article <04.Feb.91.14:12:43.GMT.#4981@UK.AC.NWL.IA> PJML@ibma.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk ("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 (agodwin@acorn.co.uk) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 91 00:11:57 GMT From: drago.tgv.com!sjogren@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Sam Sjogren) Subject: Internet->packet Gateway To: packet-radio@ucsd.edu In article <27441@ucsd.Edu>, brian@ucsd.Edu (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: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) Subject: Internet->packet Gateway To: packet-radio@ucsd.edu 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!sjogren@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Sam Sjogren) Subject: Internet->packet Gateway To: packet-radio@ucsd.edu In article <27536@ucsd.Edu>, brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor) writes... > > >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!louie@purdue.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) Subject: KA9Q NOS for the Commodore Amiga availability To: packet-radio@ucsd.edu 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: J.Heaton@uk.ac.MCC MCC Network Unit (g111) DARPA: J.Heaton@MCC.ac.uk 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!willis@uunet.uu.net (Willis Marti) Subject: PACKET->Internet Gateway To: packet-radio@ucsd.edu 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 <446@ultrix.uhasun.hartford.edu>, jbloom@uhasun.hartford.edu (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!mig@ucsd.edu (Meir) Subject: PACKET->Internet Gateway To: packet-radio@ucsd.edu In article <446@ultrix.uhasun.hartford.edu> jbloom@uhasun.hartford.edu (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: jbloom@uhasun.hartford.edu | >Snail: 225 Main St., Newington, CT 06111 | "I have no opinions." * * * * * * * ======================= Meir Green * * * * * * * * ======================= mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu * * * * * * * ======================= N2JPG ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 91 18:11:38 GMT From: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) Subject: PACKET->Internet Gateway To: packet-radio@ucsd.edu ------------------------------ 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!dana@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Dana H. Myers) Subject: The FCC, the rules, and us (longish) To: packet-radio@ucsd.edu 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 * * (213) 337-5136 | mine and do not necessarily * * dana@locus.com | reflect those of my employer * ------------------------------ End of Packet-Radio Digest ******************************