For several reasons we did not emulate the full forwarding syntax of the
BBS world, as it really starts to increase the scope as you get into store
forward. Once you accept a message, you own it, including communicating
failure back to the initiating session. Big responsibility. So by design
Based on what I know, for SMTP, JNOS may be an option at less than 300
baud, i.e., 100-110 baud or PAX, using MultiPSK as soundcard modem.
I have not tested any of it yet. I have had no time and possibilities to
test it so far.
JNOS can use FBB compression or LZW compressed SMTP on any of its
John Bradley wrote:
ARES has responded with a command unit which has HF data capability. This
could include a WIFI router so that laptops could be included from the local
EOC. This command unit would work back into an EOC with data and internet
connections. ARES would be tasked with passing
You are right in that the likely solution would be SCS and Pactor3.
The only other thing that we have tried is RFSM8000, developed by Dimitri ,
which has a email gateway built into it, is ARQ and runs on soundcard
Nobody in the US is using this on the ham bands at least since it does not
Alan Barrow wrote:
Yes, I understand it works. FBB works OK on HF because once you are
logged in, it's not that interactive. But you still have 2-3 turnarounds
before you send the initial message, etc.
FBB protocol has a feature I find very valuable: the Z-modem style
resume. JNOS had not
Hi John,
At the time I was listening to the frequency there were RTTY stations on
either side and very close, so did not attempt a connection.
Were you using ALE400 or FAE400? My understanding is that FAE is faster
than the ALE with plain text due to compression which I don't think is
technically we were using FAE400 mode and FAE2000 modes, in ARQ as opposed
to general broadcast (unproto) mode.
I agree with you on the 400ARQ mode, and the feature I appreciate most is
the ability to send mail to an unattended station, having determined that
the unattended station can hear
I believe that the simplest is not reinventing the wheel, and using
MultiPSK as a modem, using traditional BBS programs as the mail
application.
Does anyone find this to be wrong?
The store and forward part could mean a *LOT* of work to be done, or
actually, re-done...
For traditional ham
So how would we go about using FBB or JNOS? JNOS has appeal since it can
gateway to the internet, a desirable feature
for emergency comms
John
VE5MU
I believe that the simplest is not reinventing the wheel, and using MultiPSK
as a modem, using traditional BBS programs as the mail application.
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] ALE400 and 141a
Hi John,
At the time I was listening to the frequency there were RTTY stations on
either side and very close, so did not attempt a connection.
Were you using ALE400 or FAE400? My understanding is that FAE is faster
than the ALE with plain text due
When I used to be on another digital group (I think it may have been one
of the TAPR lists?), Maiko was able to get certain hardware/firmware to
work with his development of JNOS2.
Although JNOS is very theoretical to me, I wonder if it could it be set
up with the mode of your choice (within
As of Z , VE5MU and VE5GPM are on 3596USB dial , MU running ALE400, GPM
running 141A. Stations will be operating until 0700 or later
Both have QRZ and HFN enabled, try a connect or sounding . Or try sending a
small text file (1K or so).
reception reports would be appreciated
John
After an evening of limited testing, VE6OG and I found ALE400 much better on
a file transfer tonight, given the band conditions and
QRM.
Both stations remain on for the rest of the night and early morning .
John
VE5MU
In answer to your questions...
. did not have any luck with a connect from anyone other than local
hams on both 141A and ALE400 , but the bands were in particularly bad shape
over the weekend . Am in the process of installing a 800watt solid state amp
at VE5GPM, so will try that later
I tried to connect again today (this afternoon) as I saw your request
for connecting via FAE400 on 14.111 and 7.103. I tried both stations
callsigns as it almost seemed as if the frequencies were reversed from
the other day with the regular MIL-STD-188-141A mode, but maybe I
misread that, HI.
John Bradley wrote:
· Have given up on the PCALE and HFlink bunch, since there
seems to be no interest in doing anything other than sending 1 line
messages to each other , or simply sounding. The MARS version of PCALE
might work, but the author is not allowing use of this software
16 matches
Mail list logo
