[FADCA] Re: Internet/FBB/LINUX/FPAC

Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:52:25 -0500

At 08:02 PM 2/26/02, you wrote:
>Deltona, FL
>Tuesday Feb 26 1800EST
>
>I've waited for a while to respond ....
>
>A system already exists...

Hi all, you just woke me up!

--------cut----------
>There is presently a WinDoz-based system in place  to accomplish this -.
>
>It is Winlink 2000 (WL2K) http://winlink.org/ which is a radio-to-internet
>e-mail scheme between hams and third parties.  The local ham user employs
>an e-mail client terminal program Airmail
>http://www.airmail2000.com/down.htm.
>
>Airmail runs HF ARQ modes with many data controllers, and packet with some.
>It also  has telnet capability.  After routing configuration, Airmail looks
>much like any e-mail program - including address book, speller, and
>click-and-send capability. Messages in e-mail form go out the radio or
>telnet ports as set up in the routing/address book.  Such "e-mail" may be
>addressed to a BBS or Internet e-mail target.
>
>Airmail will run on a laptop in tactical opns with radio ports, and can run
>at the EOC/incident command with radio and telnet ports - the connection
>  between the Last Mile and the Internet/World.
>
>Here in Central Florida I'm (slowly) developing the application of this
>system to support the Last Mile for tactical ops as well as the magic
>connection to the Internet.  While Airmail would support BBS-to-BBS
>forwarding via the Telnet port, it is far more appropriate to make virtually
>all tactical-to-EOC-to-anywhere messages as pseudo e-mail so that once the
>"connection" is made - internet e-mail addressing protocols/routing take
>over.  They are far
>more efficient than BBS protocols once on wires.
>
>It may be several months before I have time to provide a
>proof-of-principle -
>and I still need to convince  the AirMail author to make some (minor?)
>changes
>to provide the emergency support we need at the tactical level...

The newest version of Airmail already has a lot of features that I would 
think would be very useful and it may well have all the tools needed right 
now without any additional work being required. It is by far the slickest 
piece of messaging ham radio software I have run across. There is even a 
server version of the software that I have not had a chance to review yet.

The Airmail -> WL2K system has a lot to offer and the best part is almost 
all the work has already been done. I feel the idea of using radio for the 
last mile and then Internet email is by far the best way to go. With all 
the cell phones now that have text message capacity it should be very easy 
for a ham in a remote cut off area to be able to send a digital radio 
message to one of the WL2K stations and then have it forwarded on the 
person on the other end with the cell phone or the EOC.

One of the weak areas of the WL2K system may be the low number of short 
range VHF stations available. What could be done? What about starting a 
parallel WL2K network with another CMBO set up for backup comms instead of 
for long range sailors?
Once this was done lots of VHF only stations could be added without 
overloading the CMBO because they could all be part time (on call) instead 
of full time. Or they could have two modes or operation - routine and 
emergency, the routine might access the CMBO every 6 hours or so and the 
emergency could every 5 minutes or so. I would be happy to go into lots 
more detail if there is any interest.

>A tip of the Penguin's Red Hat to you for your LINIX investigations... but
>WinDoz will do the job - and
>there are a lot more folks out there doing it with WinDoz and by e-mail than
>using LINUX and BBS protocol.

As a long time user and experimenter of Linux - started with Slackware and 
kernel 1.2.13 around late 95 I must say one of the big advantages Linux has 
is it is a much better and more reliable server then anything that 
MicroShaft ever made. Perhaps some of the Linux gurus out there would be 
interested in writing a Linux version of a WL2K like CMBO and or WL2K PMBO. 
If this was ever done we would be in great shape as perhaps more then one 
parallel network could be set up. I do not see much advantage that Linux 
could offer the portable station but a Linux CMBO server might make sense. 
It would take a lot of work so it might make more sense to try and use what 
has already be developed for Windows. I do not know if the people that 
wrote the WL2K PMBO and CMBO software would be willing to help set up a 
parallel network but it might be worth asking.

Thanks, Dale kf4sir

>Just thought you would want to know.
>
>73,
>bud N0IA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>FADCA mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fadca

-
Dale Coleman
[email protected]
http://home.earthlink.net/~kf4sir