[FADCA] FACTS About WL2K

[Jerald A DeLong]

Rick,

To be fair and unbiased towards WL2K lets look at the information you
provided us yesterday.

You explained that "Wl2K has 4 CMS servers in 3 continents any ONE of
which can run the system."

One of the biggest fears of in today is Cyber Terrorism toward 
communication. 

Having only 4 CMS server worldwide makes WL2K a very easy target to
disrupt emergency communication worldwide. Which again seems to me as a
signle point of failure. Without these 4 mail server how is traffic
going to be passed?


If every PACKET node in our state was setup as a harden mail server we
now have 25-100 nodes that do not need a (CMS) and will be a much harder
target to disrupt.


 
Jerry DeLong


On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 08:21 -0500, Rick Muething wrote:
> Jerry,
> 
> I am telling you simply FACTS that are true and which can be verified and
> which you obviously did not make much of an attempt to get correct.
> 
> You can do whatever you want with them.  I just would appreciate that the
> next time you broadcast your infinite "knowledge" it includes a bit of truth
> about what you are bashing. Then your credibility might be a little higher
> based on responses I have seen.
> 
> Rick KN6KB
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fadca-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:fadca-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
> On Behalf Of Jerald A DeLong
> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 5:52 PM
> To: Florida Amateur Digital Communication Association
> Cc: Rick Muething
> Subject: Re: [FADCA] FACTS About WL2K
> 
> Rick,
> 
> So are you telling me 4 Internet connected email server will provide
> more fault tolerance and redundancy then 50-100 individual meshed nodes
> connected via Radio and the Internet that can send mail on there own.
> 
> yea, Try again...
> 
> Dedicated Windows Server machines, this scare me even more, let me guess
> running M$ Exchange 2000 or 2003. I am M$ certified for M$ Exchange so I
> am far from being convinced this is a bullet proof system and as stable
> as Linux/Unix running SendMail or Postfix.
>  
> I do work with these platforms every day so I do know the difference.
> 
> My observation from WL2K presentation from the 2010 Orlando HamCations
> stand correct since you agree WL2K is not the only way to send HAM
> email. Then this publication should be corrected and **NOT** mislead our
> HAM community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerry DeLong
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 17:25 -0500, Jerald A DeLong wrote:
> > Rick,
> > 
> > So are you telling me 4 Internet connected email server will provide
> > more fault tolerance and redundancy then 50-100 individual meshed
> > nodes
> > connected via Radio and the Internet that can send mail on there own.
> > 
> > yea, Try again...
> > 
> > Dedicated Windows Server machines, this scare me even more, let me
> > guess
> > running M$ Exchange 2000 or 2003. I am M$ certified for M$ Exchange so
> > I
> > am far from being convinced this is a bullet proof system and as
> > stable
> > as Linux/Unix running SendMail or Postfix.
> >  
> > I do work with these platforms every day so I do know the difference.
> > 
> > My observation from WL2K presentation from the 2010 Orlando HamCations
> > stand correct since you agree WL2K is not the only way to send HAM
> > email. Then this publication should be corrected and **NOT** mislead
> > our
> > HAM community.
> > 
> > 
> > Jerry DeLong
> > 
> > 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> FADCA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fadca
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:FADCA at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2707 - Release Date: 02/28/10
> 02:34:00
>