[drats_users] drats_users Digest, Vol 40, Issue 5
Kirk Talbott
Mon Dec 26 09:14:59 PST 2011
Dan, I understand what you're saying completely and
know that a perfect callsign verification system isn't
possible. The FCC undoubtedly knows it too or
there wouldn't be paragraph 2 in part 97.219d
placing the responsibility for strict adherence to
the FCC rules regarding automated messaging
forwarding systems making unauthorized or illegal
transmissions squarely on the owners/operators of
the station.
It was not my intent to create any kind of private system,
but one open to all hams utilizing D-RATS on Internet
and RF. The same capability I was trying to create
with an unmanned D-RATS station can be accomplished
by D-RATS stations with control operators, it's just
that the high altitude location of our unmanned D-RATS
station provided the best coverage for RF use in our area
and even that can be accomplished with a mobile D-RATS
station utilizing wireless Internet and RF in a vehicle.
I'll consider the matter closed and we'll be shutting our
unmanned RF/Internet D-RATS station idea down. But the
versatility of D-RATS provides many ways to get around
problems, which is key for emergency communications,
and there is a way to get around this one. Thanks to all for the
contributions.
Happy New Year
73
KB3ONM
Kirk
-----Original Message-----
From: drats_users-request at intrepid.danplanet.com
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 11:18 AM
To: drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com
Subject: drats_users Digest, Vol 40, Issue 5
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. Re: drats_users Digest, Vol 40, Issue 3 (Kirk Talbott)
2. Re: Non-Hams on D-RATS (Raleigh Stout)
3. Re: drats_users Digest, Vol 40, Issue 3 (Dan Smith)
4. Re: Non-Hams on D-RATS (John Davis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:19:46 -0500
From: "Kirk Talbott" <kirktal7237 at msn.com>
Subject: Re: [drats_users] drats_users Digest, Vol 40, Issue 3
To: <drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com>
Message-ID: <SNT106-DS16C81F1A698A6475563E3BA6A90 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
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
******************************************
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 00:46:25 -0500
From: Raleigh Stout <ac5jw.kb5fck at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [drats_users] Non-Hams on D-RATS
To: drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com
Message-ID:
<CAMoZbCBoLto1MqioD=nmNUDi54TJAaX=8BUE=ZMNyCTh3k5zWQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I have seen as many as eight questionable D-RATS identifiers on D-RATS
ratflectors. While most of that activity is confined to the RAT
ratflector where no RF bridging is allowed, I have seen identifier
GWN-ARES for about three days on the Atlanta, GA ratflector, where
there is no ham radio callsign associated and the opportunity exists
for RF bridging. I have noted no amatuer radio callsign associated
with GWN-ARES nor any emergency related traffic over D-RATS Atlanta
ratlector as yet.
My concern is the legality of a legitimate ham on the Atlanta
reflector pinging and getting a response from the questionable Atlanta
GA identifier and that response going out over RF. Or what happens to
GWN-ARES if it decides to transfer files or ping other stations on the
ratlfector and RF bridging is utilized?
I would be more comfortable seeing an amateur radio callsign given
along with such questionable identifiers because anyone can come on
D-RATS and assume an identity and have that assumed identity
transmitted over RF without meeting the FCC rules for amateur station
identification on RF.
Now is the time before emergencies to resolve such issues because as a
ham, I would have a legitimate and legal choice to refuse traffic from
any unidentified or questionably identified station in order to keep
my station legal, especially where RF bridging is possible or in
operation.
Thoughts, anyone ?
73 Raleigh AC5JW
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 3:00 PM,
<drats_users-request at intrepid.danplanet.com> wrote:
> 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. Re: Non-Hams On D-RATS (kc4mts)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 00:39:56 -0500
> From: "kc4mts" <kc4mts at bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: [drats_users] Non-Hams On D-RATS
> To: <drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com>
> Message-ID: <564DC36F8D3748AFA4E59BCA8A40205D at DelLat610ARES>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hello Kirk and all!
>
> In reference to " ? ?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. ?"....
> An unmanned station refers to a system which is in remote operation. As an
> amateur operator we are responsible for any transmission which is sent
> over RF at our station and if we are not at the radio sending the
> transmission, we must monitor and have remote control over the station to
> stop undesired operation. Even a Station operating in beacon mode must
> have a control operator.
> ?This is not a new problem. Packet radio using automatic forwarding of
> mail has caused the same issue to arise before. It is part of our job to
> monitor transmissions as we are ultimatly responsible for what ever is
> sent over our radios.
>
> You have some good ideas for gaining some automatic control over what is
> passed through RF. On the other hand a feature that would stop an email
> from going through an RF link would probably need to be turned off for
> emergencies as some DRATS users and EOCs use tactical call signs and a
> critical emergency or priority message could easily be rejected instead of
> getting to the destination.
>
> I believe your statement about non Hams refers to a party (as in trouble
> maker or rif-raf) that is sending data over amatuer frequecies during a
> non emergency condition for the purposes of bypassing paid subscription or
> normal ?unlicenced methods of sending the data. This is usually handled in
> the same manner that a trouble maker (even a Ham) would be delt with when
> causing spurious transmissions over voice. You do not have to be an
> official observer to request some one to stop violating FCC rules, and if
> the party continues to violate the rules they can be reported to the FCC
> for further action.
>
> Alan McGrew kc4mts
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://intrepid.danplanet.com/pipermail/drats_users/attachments/20111225/c80cf8e3/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 4
> ******************************************
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 07:22:54 -0800
From: Dan Smith <dsmith at danplanet.com>
Subject: Re: [drats_users] drats_users Digest, Vol 40, Issue 3
To: Discussion of D-RATS <drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com>
Message-ID: <4EF8914E.1040304 at danplanet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 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.
No, that's not the case. The access controls affect who can use your
staton as an email gateway. However, I think I see now that your concern
is over all traffic passed over the gateway and that perhaps you're
combining "email forwarding" with passing messages and other data.
> 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.
You're describing an "open, unless closed" system. With respect to all
other software outside the ham world, such a security policy hasn't been
considered in decades. A policy of "open, unless closed" is reactionary
and implies that a violation must have occurred before access can be
restricted.
Right now, the ratflector that I run is really there to help people test
and play with D-RATS without having to own a radio (or know someone else
that does). There has long been an implied policy of "bridge to RF at
your own risk" and I believe some people do this only while their
bridging station is attended.
Systems like Winlink attempt to make sure that you're using a valid
callsign on their system, which prevents the use of tactical calls when
they are valid, and is really just as weak as a system that did no such
verification. An unlicensed friend of mine (long ago) picked up a copy
of QST one time, picked out a callsign from a distant state and
proceeded to chat on the local 2m repeater with it. Not even the humans
knew it was illegal. Any system that I put in place to validate
callsigns would be susceptible to the same sort of attack. I'm not
interested in spending my time on something with such a trivial known
attack vector.
The one system I've seen that approaches real callsign verification is
EchoLink's telephone verification procedure and subsequent centralized
password authentication. If anyone is interested in going to the effort
and expense of such a system, I'll gladly work with them.
> 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.
You don't need to connect to one of the main ratflectors to do this. Run
your own, publish the details (heck, I'll put it on the d-rats.com page)
and provide contact information on how to register. People can request
access, and you can add them to the access list and then they can
connect to your RF stations. If you didn't manually approve folks and
the system required something that looked like a valid US callsign, what
would prevent my unlicensed and unscrupulous friend from picking a
callsign out of QST and connecting? Would you feel more comfortable
defending yourself to the FCC with this system over the current one?
Also note that D-RATS is used around the globe and validating every
country's callsign is a non-trivial algorithm.
So, I understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate your desire
to run a legal system. However, I think that what you're looking for is
not sufficiently secure to run an otherwise wide-open automated system
safely. Because it will require additional spare time on my part to
implement, and still not really solve the perceived problem, I'm
hesitant to add it.
--
Dan Smith
www.danplanet.com
KK7DS
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:12:03 +0000
From: John Davis <JDavis at gtworks.com>
Subject: Re: [drats_users] Non-Hams on D-RATS
To: Discussion of D-RATS <drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com>
Message-ID: <7CB69266E5742D4E8CCC617BB429FA7A8FB85775 at CAS.ed-com.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
As the owner/operator of the "Atlanta" Ratflector and the GWN-ARES tactical
callsigns referred to, I can assure you it is operated in a legal manner.
First, the Ratflector I operate is connected to a radio on my local
repeater. GWN-ARES is a tactical callsign for an occurrence of D-RATS
running on the same PC as the Ratflector. It is used as a file server for
our local ARES group. Tactical callsigns are a wonderful feature of D-RATS
for EmComm use and whether originating on the Internet or another local
radio, when any traffic hits RF, the D-STAR radio transmits the legal, FCC
callsign associated with that radio. If you were monitoring on the RF side,
you would see my callsign. As far not seeing any emergency traffic, I
apologize that we haven't had any disasters or other emergency operations
for you to see. However, we have used D-RATS as an integral part of our
county's exercises and statewide drills.
As others have correctly pointed out, Packet, EchoLink and IRLP stations as
well as repeaters operate in an unattended mode and the "control operator"
or trustee bears the responsibility for the station. As the ARES EC for my
county, I am more than happy to provide the Ratflector with local RF
connectivity bearing my callsign. Non-hams and abuse are always possible and
it is up to us as the amateur community to be the first line of defense for
illegal operation.
D-RATS offers fabulous capabilities for EmComm (thanks, Dan) and we should
focus on this instead of rare edge cases for abuse. If you are too worried
about the less than 1% that could abuse this, you should NOT operate on
D-RATS and definitely on our Ratflector. As with many Ham discussions,
this one has run its course so can we please move on.
John Davis WB4QDX
Emergency Coordinator - Gwinnett County, GA
Amateur Radio Emergency Service
wb4qdx at arrl.net
I have seen as many as eight questionable D-RATS identifiers on D-RATS
ratflectors. While most of that activity is confined to the RAT ratflector
where no RF bridging is allowed, I have seen identifier GWN-ARES for about
three days on the Atlanta, GA ratflector, where there is no ham radio
callsign associated and the opportunity exists for RF bridging. I have
noted no amatuer radio callsign associated with GWN-ARES nor any emergency
related traffic over D-RATS Atlanta ratlector as yet.
My concern is the legality of a legitimate ham on the Atlanta reflector
pinging and getting a response from the questionable Atlanta GA identifier
and that response going out over RF. Or what happens to GWN-ARES if it
decides to transfer files or ping other stations on the ratlfector and RF
bridging is utilized?
I would be more comfortable seeing an amateur radio callsign given along
with such questionable identifiers because anyone can come on D-RATS and
assume an identity and have that assumed identity transmitted over RF
without meeting the FCC rules for amateur station identification on RF.
Now is the time before emergencies to resolve such issues because as a ham,
I would have a legitimate and legal choice to refuse traffic from any
unidentified or questionably identified station in order to keep my station
legal, especially where RF bridging is possible or in operation.
Thoughts, anyone ?
73 Raleigh AC5JW
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 3:00 PM,
<drats_users-request at intrepid.danplanet.com> wrote:
> 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. Re: Non-Hams On D-RATS (kc4mts)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 00:39:56 -0500
> From: "kc4mts" <kc4mts at bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: [drats_users] Non-Hams On D-RATS
> To: <drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com>
> Message-ID: <564DC36F8D3748AFA4E59BCA8A40205D at DelLat610ARES>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hello Kirk and all!
>
> In reference to " ? ?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. ?"....
> An unmanned station refers to a system which is in remote operation. As an
> amateur operator we are responsible for any transmission which is sent
> over RF at our station and if we are not at the radio sending the
> transmission, we must monitor and have remote control over the station to
> stop undesired operation. Even a Station operating in beacon mode must
> have a control operator.
> ?This is not a new problem. Packet radio using automatic forwarding of
> mail has caused the same issue to arise before. It is part of our job to
> monitor transmissions as we are ultimatly responsible for what ever is
> sent over our radios.
>
> You have some good ideas for gaining some automatic control over what is
> passed through RF. On the other hand a feature that would stop an email
> from going through an RF link would probably need to be turned off for
> emergencies as some DRATS users and EOCs use tactical call signs and a
> critical emergency or priority message could easily be rejected instead of
> getting to the destination.
>
> I believe your statement about non Hams refers to a party (as in trouble
> maker or rif-raf) that is sending data over amatuer frequecies during a
> non emergency condition for the purposes of bypassing paid subscription or
> normal ?unlicenced methods of sending the data. This is usually handled in
> the same manner that a trouble maker (even a Ham) would be delt with when
> causing spurious transmissions over voice. You do not have to be an
> official observer to request some one to stop violating FCC rules, and if
> the party continues to violate the rules they can be reported to the FCC
> for further action.
>
> Alan McGrew kc4mts
> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
> scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://intrepid.danplanet.com/pipermail/drats_users/attachments/201112
> 25/c80cf8e3/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 4
> ******************************************
_______________________________________________
drats_users mailing list
drats_users at intrepid.danplanet.com
http://intrepid.danplanet.com/mailman/listinfo/drats_users
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4703 - Release Date: 12/25/11
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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 5
******************************************
More information about the drats_users
mailing list