[drats_users] drats_users Digest, Vol 40, Issue 3

Sun Dec 25 14:19:46 PST 2011

Perhaps my misunderstanding, but I did not think E-mail Access
controls had anything to do with E-mail forwarding.   It was
my understanding that E-mail access controls were to allow
certain D-RATS stations to access another D-RATS station's
incoming and outgoing E-mail servers, which on our
remote station are not  configured because we don't
have Internet, yet.  Even if it did, the E-mail Access controls
in D-RATS do not allow for excluding certain callsigns, like the
non-ham callsigns, it excludes EVERYBODY except for whom
you give access, meaning one would have to enter every callsign
in D-RATS nation into the E-mail Access Controls except for
the non-ham callsigns you find coming online.  I couldn't
imagine having to do this in any software.

Our remote D-RATS station is purely an RF station right now
and no ratflectors are connected.  We would like it to be
connected to the main ratflector because that way an
Internet only D-RATS station could forward E-mail through
our remote D-RATS station to a D-RATS RF only station and vice
versa, gating E-mail between RF and Internet.    I mean this
is one of the tenets of emergency communications right,
finding alternate paths for communications?

But E-mail forwarding between an Internet only D-RATS
station and a D-RATS RF only station using an intermediary
Internet/RF remote D-RATS station cannot take place unless
all the stations are ONLINE.  Online to what?  Either online
as an RF station or online to a ratflector and a D-RATS
remote station used for E-mail forwarding has to be online
to both,  no PING, no FORWARDING.  D-RATS stations on the
Internet but not on a ratflector do not appear as online to
other D-RATS stations.  RF stations do.   If our remote D-RATS station is
online to a ratflector it can forward E-mail from an Internet
only station to an RF station, AND it is subject to forwarding
E-mail from a non-ham station on the Internet to a ham station
on RF which is illegal.

We have a way to shut down the radio on the remote station
and we will have a way to remotely shut down the D-RATS computer.
Even with these safeguards ANY D-RATS station with ANY
text in the callsign field of D-RATS Preferences could E-mail
forward through it, which would appear to violate FCC part 97.219d.
Monitor the remote D-RATS station continuously?  Wouldn't
this defeat the purpose of having a remote station?

Now, when the FCC is ready to hammer some poor ham for
violating FCC regulations, does it take the liberal approach
and assume the ham is operating in good faith and with
good intentions and determines that the errant ham is just
misguided, or does the FCC follow the letter of the law as written?
I think the latter is most likely the case and using  WL2K, Packet,
or any other message forwarding systems which may have the same
capabilities as D-RATS for making illegal transmissions won't be
pertinent as a defense for the case at hand and the poor ham
that broke the rules.

What am I missing?

-----Original Message----- 
From: drats_users-request at intrepid.danplanet.com
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 3:00 PM
To: drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com
Subject: drats_users Digest, Vol 40, Issue 3

Send drats_users mailing list submissions to
drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://intrepid.danplanet.com/mailman/listinfo/drats_users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
drats_users-request at intrepid.danplanet.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
drats_users-owner at intrepid.danplanet.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of drats_users digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Authentication problem (Dick, WN3R)
   2. Non-Hams On D-RATS (Kirk Talbott)
   3. Re: Non-Hams On D-RATS (Dan Smith)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:23:04 -0500
From: "Dick, WN3R" <wn3r.us at gmail.com>
Subject: [drats_users] Authentication problem
To: "drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com"
<drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com>
Message-ID: <EFFDADAC-2BA6-4802-A51A-CCE3C3876B97 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Kirk:

Would it make sense to dedicate a channel for retransmission? Only those who 
are trusted will be given the channel name.  This is just as secure as a 
password.

Not sure how that affects email; not sure that email requires the same 
security.

73, Dick WN3R

Richard Hayman

Sent from my iPad

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 00:04:41 -0500
From: "Kirk Talbott" <kirktal7237 at msn.com>
Subject: [drats_users] Non-Hams On D-RATS
To: "drats_users" <drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com>
Message-ID: <SNT106-DS722F03BE918A8470EC351A6A80 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Using the D-RATS automatic E-mail forwarding feature with a manned or
unmanned D-RATS RF station appears to violate FCC Part 97.219d listed
below.  Since D-RATS cannot accommodate paragraph (1) because non-hams
ARE getting on D-RATS,  most D-RATS users won?t want to live by paragraph
(2).   In fact most D-RATS users probably don?t know this problem exists
and are experimenting with D-RATS RF at will not realizing that non-hams
doing an E-mail forward through their stations might be illegal.  So would
a file transfer with a non-ham station I should think.  D-RATS does have
a provision to handle the problem however and that is to disable
automatic E-mail forwarding and disable file transfers.  But that?s a big
part of D-RATS function lost.

FCC Part 97.219d

For stations participating in a
message forwarding system, the control
operator of the first forwarding
station must:
(1) Authenticate the identity of the
station from which it accepts communications
on behalf of the system; or
(2) Accept accountability for any violation
of the rules in this part contained
in messages it retransmits to
the system.

What we or any D-RATS user would need is the ability, by the
?first forwarding station,? to be able to callsign authenticate the
station initiating the E-mail forwarding.  As D-RATS stands now,
ANY station with ANY text in the callsign field of the D-RATS config
file could initiate an E-mail forward through ANY manned or unmanned
D-RATS RF station and have it be automatically forwarded on to
destination.   I think this would be illegal if the callsign of the 
forwarding
initiating station isn?t a valid amateur radio callsign.    The term
control operator throws me a bit here because an unmanned
D-RATS RF station has no control operator.   I?m not even certain
an unmanned D-RATS RF station can exist under Part 97.

As for what could be done and where, I would have no clue.  I?ll make a stab
at it:

Have a verification routine on the callsign field of the D-RATS config file
such that an invalid callsign would be difficult to enter?

In the config file for Enable Automatic E-mail Forwarding have a user 
enterable
?Exclude These Callsigns? list, then before incoming mail can reside in an
D-RATS user outbox compare the callsign in the header of incoming E-mail 
against
the callsigns in the list and flag it somehow such that it can?t reside in 
the
outbox or anywhere else on the first forwarding station?

Put call sign verification on the web site for downloading D-RATS software?

To accommodate paragraph (1) of Part 97.219d make an unmanned D-RATS
station be able to be remotely monitored and the outbox remotely accessible
by station control operators such that manual authentication could take
place in the event non-hams are attempting E-mail forwarding?

Fanciful indeed these fixes and no doubt not even possible.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://intrepid.danplanet.com/pipermail/drats_users/attachments/20111224/46eac413/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 11:57:00 -0800
From: Dan Smith <dsmith at danplanet.com>
Subject: Re: [drats_users] Non-Hams On D-RATS
To: Discussion of D-RATS <drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com>
Message-ID: <4EF62E8C.5030606 at danplanet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

> In the config file for Enable Automatic E-mail Forwarding have a user
> enterable ?Exclude These Callsigns? list, then before incoming mail
> can reside in an D-RATS user outbox compare the callsign in the
> header of incoming E-mail against the callsigns in the list and flag
> it somehow such that it can?t reside in the outbox or anywhere else
> on the first forwarding station?

In the Email Access bit of the preferences dialog, you can control which
stations are able to send, receive, or send/receive through your
station. How does this not address the problem?

I think you may also be confusing the public ratflector that I run with
"getting on D-RATS". You are in no way required to connect to that
ratflector to run your station and you may indeed run your own with
suitable access control in order to isolate your station from the rest
of the "riff raff". The ratflector allows for a password to even
connect, and when combined with the fine-grained per-callsign email
access controls mentioned above, should be more than enough to remain legal.

What am I missing?

-- 
Dan Smith
www.danplanet.com
KK7DS

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
drats_users mailing list
drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com
http://intrepid.danplanet.com/mailman/listinfo/drats_users

End of drats_users Digest, Vol 40, Issue 3
****************************************** 