Dave,
My point is that the motive for doing anything has to be justified some reward. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Its zero work, Steve - a trivial script would automatically extract > addresses from the log, the capture of which would be continuous, > automatic, and unattended. The captured email addresses would not be > random -- they would be guaranteed live. > > So your response to my constructively identifying a possible > weakness in Winlink is "If you succeed in gathering a saleable > amount of email addresses, let me know how you bid the addresses". > You and other memebers of your team often whine about negative > attitudes towards Winlink, but you'll throw a gratuitous jab at the > drop of a hat; reap what you sow. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Waterman, k4cjx" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dave, > > > > > > My goodness, this is surely a lot of work, very slow work, to grab > a > > few random email addresses. I am confident that those who do such > > things, have much better methods. Try it and see how it works. If > > you succeed in gathering a saleable amount of email addresses, let > me > > know how you bid the addresses. > > > > > > Steve, k4cjx > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > 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/
