[FADCA] FACTS About WL2K

Mon Mar 1 10:43:57 EST 2010

Rick,

I made a valid point and gave you a chance to answer.

"Without these 4 mail server how is traffic going to be passed?"

Answer is?

Do you really think the WL2K 4 CMS cannot be vulnerable to disruption
especially running a Windows platform.

Just because it hasn't happen yet doesn't make it less likely it wont,
and leaves your Group with a false sense of security.

I would hope something like this doesn't happen because it would make
our entire HAM community look bad.

But WL2k is a soft target...

As stated to the reflector:

I could care less about WL2K it obvious that you guys need to re-examine
your topology a bit to really make it useful for emergency
communication.But I can say you guys have made a good effort to provide
some kind of solution for the HAM community.

Maybe you should spend more time listening to your community needs and
trying to improve your product instead of defending potential problems.

The fact you are done with wasting any more time with me and cant answer
a few very simple question shows you are not concerned what your
community thinks.

I am done with this too....

Jerry DeLong

On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 10:09 -0500, Rick Muething wrote:
> Jerry,  (This is off reflector)
> 
> I replied to set the FACTS straight...something you still didn't admit you
> were incorrect and are now trying to create some type of oblique argument.
> 
> FACTS:
> 1) You were totally incorrect in claiming WL2K has 1 central server and it
> was a single point failure.
> 2) Your assumptions about what programs are being run on the servers are
> incorrect and indicate your total unfamiliarity of how WL2K works.
> 3) WL2K has been in continuous operation for over 11 years with a nearly
> perfect reliability record. For an all volunteer, minimally funded system
> most would say a very exemplary record.
> 4) WL2K has delivered nearly 10 million messages in that period.
> 5) WL2K has performed well with documented evidence in almost every disaster
> or emergency including 911, Katrina, Asian Tsunami, Haiti Earth quake to
> name but a few.
> 6) WL2K has been adopted by MARS and a large number of state and national
> organizations as a significant component in their emergency communications
> services.
> 
> I really honestly don't care what you do or what you think but when you
> insist on "broadcasting" incorrect facts labeled truth I will respond
> immediately and aggressively with the TRUTH and be willing to back it up
> with documentation and testimonials.  Based on several private responses I
> received this is unfortunately not the first time you have done this. It is
> your credibility that has been questioned ...not mine.
> 
> As far as I am concerned I am done with wasting any more time with you on
> this point but be assured if I hear of you making irresponsible and
> incorrect statements I will respond immediately with the verifiable FACTS.
> 
> 
> Rick KN6KB
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerald A DeLong [mailto:kd4yal at tampabay.rr.com] 
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:18 AM
> To: Rick Muething
> Cc: 'Florida Amateur Digital Communication Association'
> Subject: RE: [FADCA] FACTS About WL2K
> 
> 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
> > 
> 
> 
> 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: 03/01/10
> 02:34:00
> 