Since all it takes is one bad-apple ham or SWL with access to an SCS
modem to monitor a couple of PMBOs, harvest email addresses, and
sell them to spammers, I assume that you have deployed an enterprise-
scale anti-virus solution comparable to those employed by ISPs.
With the FCC becoming more sensitive to indecency over the airwaves,
content filters might also be a good idea.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Winlink 2000 complies with Section §97.219(c) for 3rd Party
traffic
> Content Rules:
>
> §97.219(c) provides protection for licensees operating as part of
a
> message forwarding system. "...the control operators of forwarding
> stations that retransmit inadvertently communications that violate
> the rules in this Part are not accountable for the violative
> communications. They are, however, responsible for discontinuing
such
> communications once they become aware of their presence."
>
>
> For those rare occasions where we discover an improper message,
that
> is exactly what we do. Over the last several years, there have
been
> over 375 people locked out of the system due to improper content,
or
> improper license. Each new user is checked for proper license. If
> there is no such public database available, a fax or scan copy of
the
> license is required.
>
>
> Steve, k4cjx
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > You may strongly disagree with Mike's comment, and Mike's
comment
> > may well be inconsistent with FCC regulations, but in labeling
his
> > comment "dangerous", you are reducing the likelihood that Mike
and
> > others will participate in this discussion. Mike's message will
not
> > induce the FCC to eliminate the ham bands, nor will it induce
the
> > IRS to begin taxing amateur transmissions. Surely, you could
find a
> > less intimidating way of providing a correction.
> >
> > For example, let me point out to you that the QRM discussions
here
> > have not been limited to Pactor 3. The use of any Pactor
protocol
> in
> > semi-automatic operation causes QRM; these protocols lack the
busy
> > detectors that would enable station automation software like
> Winlink
> > to refrain from responding to a request when the frequency is
> > already in use.
> >
> > The QRM in question is not "supposed"; I have personally been
QRM'd
> > by Pactor signals on several occasions, as have many other users
> > here. It would be nice if you and Steve K4CJX would stop
pretending
> > that this QRM doesn't occur, or that it only affects PSK
operators
> > using panoramic reception. When you deny reality, your
credibility
> > is called into question.
> >
> > Since you raised the subject, could you explain how Winlink
detects
> > and quarantines email messages whose content is inconsistent
with
> > FCC regulations governing conveyance over amateur frequencies?
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Dave, AA6YQ
> >
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "KB6YNO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > Mike,
> > >
> > > That is about the MOST dangerous comment I've heard on here!
> > >
> > > We might as well make all ham communications illegal, since we
> can
> > call
> > > everyone on the phone to talk, send faxes and send messages.
AOL
> > and "Ma
> > > Bell" would love that. I guess we should get the U.S. Postal
> > service
> > > involved, since e-mail is taking away from their business
too.
> We
> > might as
> > > well invoke a tax every time a ham keys their transmitter.
> > Repressive
> > > regimes invoke this type of communications. Try China or
North
> > Korea. I'm
> > > sure they would share your opinion.
> > >
> > > By the way, Winlink is a system NOT a mode. PACTOR and SCAMP
are
> > modes and
> > > part of a system.
> > >
> > > Personal communications and messages, whether it be voice,
> > SSTV/FAX image,
> > > CW, packet message or ham radio e-mail are NOT illegal. That
is
> > what ham
> > > radio is all about.
> > >
> > > The arguments seen here are about the validity of wide-band
> PACTOR
> > 3 signals
> > > on HF and supposed QRM between stations. I have a biased
opinion
> > as I am a
> > > Winlink 2000 SysOp. Despite that, we are not contesting the
> > validity of
> > > this particular style of the personal communication, in this
case
> > an e-mail
> > > (though there are those that have a different opinion).
> > >
> > > I think your opinion is about the most uninformed I've heard
on
> > here yet.
> > > You really need to review Part 97 and look up the definition
> > of "Pecuniary
> > > Interest" and what it means. What you're suggesting goes
beyond
> > Winlink and
> > > strikes at the core and heart of amateur radio.
> > >
> > > Eric, KB6YNO
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "kl7ar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:05 AM
> > > Subject: [digitalradio] Win Link
> > >
> > >
> > > I find the ongoing discussion about the technical issues
> > interesting.
> > > The point is that 99% of QSO's going on are person to person
be
> it
> > via
> > > SSB ,CW or the DIGI modes. Win Link is a mode which should be
used
> > > only for emergincy traffic in a designated sub-band.The fact
is
> the
> > > Win Link people want to use the Amatuer spectrum to send their
> > > personal E mail traffic,just as traffic which can go via a
> > commercial
> > > carrier is illegal on the ham band so should ALL personal Win
Link
> > > traffic. If I were AOL I would ask the FCC to shut Win Link
down
> > since
> > > the traffic it handles can go via a commercial carrier.
> > > 73's
> > > Mike KL7AR
The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
