Andy brings up some very good points. I concur that WINMOR, as used with Winlink 2000, will engender a great deal more interest in using ham radio for e-mail. I know that I plan to use this myself, especially building it into public service/emergency communication. We have no way of accessing any ham radio e-mail in this part of the U.S., and even if we did, I would not be willing to build it into public service because it may not be there when you most need it. (It is fine for casual e-mail use, if you have it).
Although WINMOR as used for the Winlink 2000 system will not be able to operate peer to peer, it is my long term hope that since it is an open mode, it may be incorporated into other programs or used within a stand alone multi-use digital program that can do both peer to peer and still be useful for the e-mail connection. From what I have observed over the years, only a tiny percentage of hams have the slightest interest in HF digital. And since the days of VHF packet, there is minimal interest there as well. This means that in order to get enough hams to actually be prepared to use these modes, it has to be extremely simple, no cost except for some basic interfacing to existing rigs, and work well under varying conditions without much operator intervention. There are those who believe that we need many tools in the toolbox, but is this really the case? It may be more realistic to have the fewest number. The ideal situation is to have one that works on MF/HF/VHF/UHF using the same interface and basic protocols that the user does not have to be too concerned about. Otherwise you will only have the digital aficianados available for digital modes and that is no where near enough for widespread public service use. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > As the addition of WINMOR to Paclink has begun early testing , mostly > testing of rig interfacing, I have had an opportunity to reacquaint > myself with Paclink, Airmail, and the Winlink system. I had set > things up for Winlink at my station a couple of years ago and used a > local 2M Telpac node to access the system . Sure, I could use the > Internet to access Winlink , but after my local telpac node went down > I regretted not having a direct radio on-ramp , no Pactor TNC here. > > Just as I was tempted to spend a zillion dollars on a P3 capable > machine, along came talk of WINMOR . I had some initial confusion > cleared up by Rick, KV9U and others in an earlier thread. Now, > studying Paclink a bit more has me really looking forward to using > public mailboxes that use WINMOR on HF. > > I assume that many people know already, but just in case there are > some that do not, WINMOR will not be a digital mode that your can use > for keyboard "chats" or QSOs, it is intended to allow you to connect > to a HF Radio Message Server and unload your email formatted messages > . It is a mode designed to work within the Paclink application. > > There is really no valid reason, but I bet you that when WINMOR HF > servers come on line...I will be trying to connect to one thousands of > miles away. This, despite the fact that I could "pop" my message in > to the system via Telnet or 2M packet. > > I wrote a brief article for a local radio group explaining the > differing concepts between NBEMS/FLARQ in FL-Digi and WINMOR in > PacklinkW. As I wrote it, and played around with both this weekend , > I am of the opinion that BOTH will be useful tools for message > delivery. NBEMS for all the reasons previously mentioned on this > message group, and the Winlink system that is efficient ,soon to be > open to more people with a sound card based HF option, and a potential > busy-detect system that will hopefully eliminate some of the PACTOR > QRM argument. > > Where all this leaves ALE, is another issue ! > > Just rambling, 73 de Andy K3UK > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked > > > Recommended software: Winwarbler, FLDIGI, DM780, or Multipsk > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.6/1980 - Release Date: 03/02/09 > 23:02:00 > >
