Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [BPQ32] RE: [LinBPQ] LINBPQ SYSOP and SP titles ?

Expand Messages
  • K.O. Higgs
    Yes... short, but honest. Leave it like it is.... K.O. n0kfq ... -- K.O. Higgs n0kfq@centurytel.net
    Message 1 of 22 , Mar 9, 2013
      Yes... short, but honest. Leave it like it is....
      K.O. n0kfq
      On 3/9/2013 8:36 AM, John Wiseman wrote:
       

      It could of course be done, but I really don't see the point.
       
      Any comments from other sysops?
       
      73, John


      From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard
      Sent: 09 March 2013 14:30
      To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [BPQ32] RE: [LinBPQ] LINBPQ SYSOP and SP titles ?

       

      They are ALL WinPack users … I think you misunderstand my request John … When I said remove the ‘title contents’, let the whole SP header come through as usual so that their header lists are complete - just the ‘title contents’ are removed or replaced with say ‘hidden’, ‘blank’, ‘    ’, or something .. Only done on ‘SP’ messages of course ..

      73, Dick ZS6RO

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        < /p>

      I don't think so. The beacons are sent so progarms like Winpack can build message lists. All messages can be seen as they are transmitted over RF, so I don't see the problem with the title being retransmitted. If you don't have any Winpack users relying on the beacons then turn them off.

      73, John


      Thanks John …

      Next, repeat question – On unproto beacons, can the SP message title content be removed .. SB titles are fine as they are public .. The message title content mustn’t be removed, only the unproto beacon transmission of the title contents must be blocked.

      I have radio users who scrutinize these uproto beacons then question me on why was this personal message sent with such and such title … I ask them “can read the message” – they obviously say “no” and I say, “w ell, that message isn’t for you – forget about it!’ .. Problem is the title content has piqued their interest *Sigh …

      73, Dick ZS6RO

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Will be in the next version.

      73, John


      John, I asked this before – If a user send a personal message to the BBS callsign, can it be sent to the Sysop callsign instead ?? .. (Either like Sysop messages and a ‘tick-box’, or just hard-coded ..

      One assumes that any personal message sent to the BBS actual callsign is meant for that BBS Sysop !

      73, Dick ZS6RO


      -- 
      
      K.O. Higgs 
      n0kfq@...
      
      
    • Jerry
      Never heard that ever being an issue in the last 30+ Years.. Interesting.. Who would care if it was not their Pmail.. Are they asking in an attempt to police
      Message 2 of 22 , Mar 9, 2013

        Never heard that ever being an issue in the last 30+ Years…. Interesting..  Who would care if it was not their Pmail..  Are they asking in an attempt to police packet.. We have plenty Packet Police already..

         

        From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard
        Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2013 9:01 AM
        To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [BPQ32] RE: [LinBPQ] LINBPQ SYSOP and SP titles ?

         

         

        Thanks John …

         

        Next, repeat question – On unproto beacons, can the SP message title content be removed .. SB titles are fine as they are public .. The message title content mustn’t be removed, only the unproto beacon transmission of the title contents must be blocked.

         

        I have radio users who scrutinize these uproto beacons then question me on why was this personal message sent with such and such title … I ask them “can read the message” – they obviously say “no” and I say, “well, that message isn’t for you – forget about it!’ .. Problem is the title content has piqued their interest *Sigh …

         

        73, Dick ZS6RO

         

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

         

        Will be in the next version.

         

        73, John

         


        John, I asked this before – If a user send a personal message to the BBS callsign, can it be sent to the Sysop callsign instead ?? .. (Either like Sysop messages and a ‘tick-box’, or just hard-coded ..

        One assumes that any personal message sent to the BBS actual callsign is meant for that BBS Sysop !

        73, Dick ZS6RO

      • Jerry
        I see no reason to block the title of a PMAIL.. In fact it makes no sense why your users would be making comments or airing any concerns.. About something that
        Message 3 of 22 , Mar 9, 2013

          I see no reason to block the title of a PMAIL.. In fact it makes no sense why your users would be making comments or airing any concerns.. About something that should not concern them in any way..

           

          From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard
          Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2013 9:43 AM
          To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [BPQ32] RE: [LinBPQ] LINBPQ SYSOP and SP titles ?

           

           

          Yes, agreed, hence the reason why ‘blocking’ the title contents on SP message headers is asked for … The message body is compressed and not seen by the casual user watching his screen on the radio channel – but the tile has caused some of my radio users to make comments as mentioned on earlier emails on this thread ..

           

          73, Dick ZS6RO

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

           

          Even with FBB compressed forwarding the title should be sent in plain text.

           

          John

           

           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

          Another thing, in my ‘radio service domain’ all my BBS messages/bulletins are sent over radio in compressed mode, so cannot be read while they are being downloaded by radio users ..

          Also, I am only talking about personal messages (SP) which cannot be retrieved and read  by anyone other than the author or recipient …

          73, Dick ZS6RO ..

          ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          They are ALL WinPack users … I think you misunderstand my request John … When I said remove the ‘title contents’, let the whole SP header come through as usual so that their header lists are complete - just the ‘title contents’ are removed or replaced with say ‘hidden’, ‘blank’, ‘    ’, or something .. Only done on ‘SP’ messages of course ..

          73, Dick ZS6RO

        • Jerry
          Another thought. Why would users be sitting on a forwarding frequency watching a bunch of compressed characters flow by. or if its is because you have no
          Message 4 of 22 , Mar 9, 2013

            Another thought… Why would users be sitting on a forwarding frequency watching a bunch of compressed characters flow by…  or if its is because you have no choice but to forward over a User Frequency… Have then turn monitor off and they will not see any of that going on and just connect to the BBS to send and read their messages…

             

            I would never want to as a user watch every single packet transmission on my screen unless I was trying to troubleshoot a problem..   A lot cleaner… lot more relaxing and apparently a lot less concerning if they do not just sit and watch compressed forwarding going on..

             

            73 Jerry

             

            Ok.. Done with my 2 cents.. J

             

             

            From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
            Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2013 11:24 AM
            To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [BPQ32] RE: [LinBPQ] LINBPQ SYSOP and SP titles ?

             

             

            I see no reason to block the title of a PMAIL.. In fact it makes no sense why your users would be making comments or airing any concerns.. About something that should not concern them in any way..

             

            From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard
            Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2013 9:43 AM
            To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [BPQ32] RE: [LinBPQ] LINBPQ SYSOP and SP titles ?

             

             

            Yes, agreed, hence the reason why ‘blocking’ the title contents on SP message headers is asked for … The message body is compressed and not seen by the casual user watching his screen on the radio channel – but the tile has caused some of my radio users to make comments as mentioned on earlier emails on this thread ..

             

            73, Dick ZS6RO

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

             

            Even with FBB compressed forwarding the title should be sent in plain text.

             

            John

             

             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

            Another thing, in my ‘radio service domain’ all my BBS messages/bulletins are sent over radio in compressed mode, so cannot be read while they are being downloaded by radio users ..

            Also, I am only talking about personal messages (SP) which cannot be retrieved and read  by anyone other than the author or recipient …

            73, Dick ZS6RO ..

            ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            They are ALL WinPack users … I think you misunderstand my request John … When I said remove the ‘title contents’, let the whole SP header come through as usual so that their header lists are complete - just the ‘title contents’ are removed or replaced with say ‘hidden’, ‘blank’, ‘    ’, or something .. Only done on ‘SP’ messages of course ..

            73, Dick ZS6RO

          • Richard
            I don t have packet police (and have in my +30 years been queried by packet police ), and no it wasn t because some user wanted to police the personal
            Message 5 of 22 , Mar 9, 2013

              I don’t have ‘packet police’ (and have in my +30 years been queried by ‘packet police’), and no it wasn’t because some user wanted to police the personal messages – just the option of blocking the title so I don’t get asked these silly questions .. The questions arise from curiosity, nothing else … (I also stated that FBB has done this for many years – no one ever complained!) ..

              Looks like most Sysops don’t feel it a necessary option, so I say – OK, let’s drop it and get onto other issues ..

              73, Dick ZS6RO

              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

              Never heard that ever being an issue in the last 30+ Years…. Interesting..  Who would care if it was not their Pmail..  Are they asking in an attempt to police packet.. We have plenty Packet Police already..

              Jerry

               

            • Richard
              No one mentioned this happened on a forwarding channel - I said a radio user uses WinPack which collects the unproto headers and processes them so the user can
              Message 6 of 22 , Mar 9, 2013

                No one mentioned this happened on a forwarding channel – I said a radio user uses WinPack which collects the unproto headers and processes them so the user can view and tag which bulls etc. he wants to download later … this is a normal operation on a ‘user channel’ …

                73, Dick ZS6RO

                 

                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                Another thought… Why would users be sitting on a forwarding frequency watching a bunch of compressed characters flow by…  or if its is because you have no choice but to forward over a User Frequency… Have then turn monitor off and they will not see any of that going on and just connect to the BBS to send and read their messages…

                I would never want to as a user watch every single packet transmission on my screen unless I was trying to troubleshoot a problem..   A lot cleaner… lot more relaxing and apparently a lot less concerning if they do not just sit and watch compressed forwarding going on..

                73 Jerry

                 

                Ok.. Done with my 2 cents.. J

              • Jerry
                Sorry was not trying to offend.. Just trying to comprehend why these would generate any, let alone silly questions.. My Bad.. From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                Message 7 of 22 , Mar 9, 2013

                  Sorry was not trying to offend.. Just trying to comprehend why these would generate any, let alone silly questions..

                   

                  My Bad..

                   

                  From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard
                  Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2013 12:01 PM
                  To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [BPQ32] RE: [LinBPQ] LINBPQ SYSOP and SP titles ?

                   

                   

                  I don’t have ‘packet police’ (and have in my +30 years been queried by ‘packet police’), and no it wasn’t because some user wanted to police the personal messages – just the option of blocking the title so I don’t get asked these silly questions .. The questions arise from curiosity, nothing else … (I also stated that FBB has done this for many years – no one ever complained!) ..

                  Looks like most Sysops don’t feel it a necessary option, so I say – OK, let’s drop it and get onto other issues ..

                  73, Dick ZS6RO

                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                  Never heard that ever being an issue in the last 30+ Years…. Interesting..  Who would care if it was not their Pmail..  Are they asking in an attempt to police packet.. We have plenty Packet Police already..

                  Jerry

                   

                • Jerry
                  Sounds like something Winpack needs to deal with. ?? Anyway .. Sorry again was not trying to offend.. Just could not comprehend why anyone would concern
                  Message 8 of 22 , Mar 9, 2013

                    Sounds like something Winpack needs to deal with. ??  Anyway .. Sorry again was not trying to offend.. Just could not comprehend why anyone would concern themselves with such an inconsequential item.

                     

                     

                    J

                     

                    73 jk

                     

                     

                    From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard
                    Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2013 12:05 PM
                    To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [BPQ32] RE: [LinBPQ] LINBPQ SYSOP and SP titles ?

                     

                     

                    No one mentioned this happened on a forwarding channel – I said a radio user uses WinPack which collects the unproto headers and processes them so the user can view and tag which bulls etc. he wants to download later … this is a normal operation on a ‘user channel’ …

                    73, Dick ZS6RO

                     

                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                    Another thought… Why would users be sitting on a forwarding frequency watching a bunch of compressed characters flow by…  or if its is because you have no choice but to forward over a User Frequency… Have then turn monitor off and they will not see any of that going on and just connect to the BBS to send and read their messages…

                    I would never want to as a user watch every single packet transmission on my screen unless I was trying to troubleshoot a problem..   A lot cleaner… lot more relaxing and apparently a lot less concerning if they do not just sit and watch compressed forwarding going on..

                    73 Jerry

                     

                    Ok.. Done with my 2 cents.. J

                  • Richard
                    No offence taken Jerry - sorry if I sounded so officious in my reply - *Smile .. This is Africa , enough said !!! .. (I wasn t born in Africa) .. I m off to
                    Message 9 of 22 , Mar 9, 2013

                      No offence taken Jerry – sorry if I sounded so officious in my reply - *Smile ….  This is ‘Africa’, enough said !!! .. (I wasn’t born in Africa) ..

                       

                      I’m off to download version ‘98’ …

                       

                      73, Dick ZS6RO

                       

                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                      Sorry was not trying to offend.. Just trying to comprehend why these would generate any, let alone silly questions.. 

                      My Bad..

                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                      I don’t have ‘packet police’ (and have in my +30 years been queried by ‘packet police’), and no it wasn’t because some user wanted to police the personal messages – just the option of blocking the title so I don’t get asked these silly questions .. The questions arise from curiosity, nothing else … (I also stated that FBB has done this for many years – no one ever complained!) ..

                      Looks like most Sysops don’t feel it a necessary option, so I say – OK, let’s drop it and get onto other issues ..

                      73, Dick ZS6RO

                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                      Never heard that ever being an issue in the last 30+ Years…. Interesting..  Who would care if it was not their Pmail..  Are they asking in an attempt to police packet.. We have plenty Packet Police already..

                      Jerry

                    • PE1RDW
                      On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 16:22:56 +0100, K.O. Higgs ... I don t see the point either, thinking that a message send over the air is either
                      Message 10 of 22 , Mar 9, 2013
                        On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 16:22:56 +0100, K.O. Higgs <n0kfq@...>
                        wrote:

                        > Yes... short, but honest. Leave it like it is....
                        > K.O. n0kfq
                        > On 3/9/2013 8:36 AM, John Wiseman wrote:
                        >>
                        >> It could of course be done, but I really don't see the point.
                        >> Any comments from other sysops?
                        >> 73, John
                        >>
                        I don't see the point either, thinking that a message send over the air is
                        either private or secure is an illusion. even when send compressed they
                        are easy to intercept and reconstruct.

                        --
                        73 Andre PE1RDW
                      • Richard
                        To put it in another way Jerry - ALL my radio users are pensioners (so am I) so time is irrelevant *Grin .. The author of WinPack is no longer with us . 73,
                        Message 11 of 22 , Mar 9, 2013

                          To put it in another way Jerry – ALL my radio users are pensioners (so am I) so time is irrelevant *Grin …. The author of WinPack is no longer with us …

                           

                          73, Dick ZS6RO

                           

                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

                          Sounds like something Winpack needs to deal with. ??  Anyway .. Sorry again was not trying to offend.. Just could not comprehend why anyone would concern themselves with such an inconsequential item.

                          J

                           73 jk

                        • Richard
                          The rationale behind the request was that if the title contents were blocked from public view, no questions about the message would be asked (Out of sight, out
                          Message 12 of 22 , Mar 9, 2013
                            The rationale behind the request was that if the title contents were blocked
                            from public view, no questions about the message would be asked (Out of
                            sight, out of mind) ... FBB thought it was a good idea (I keep plugging this
                            *Sigh) ..

                            I've always told my radio users that nothing sent over radio is 'private',
                            so totally agree with your comment Andre ...

                            As I said earlier, lets drop it - no need to mince this into fine pieces ...
                            I'll take the silly questions from my users (they are 'my' users *Smile) ...
                            Thanks for all the comments regardless ....

                            73, Dick ZS6RO

                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                            > Yes... short, but honest. Leave it like it is....
                            > K.O. n0kfq
                            > On 3/9/2013 8:36 AM, John Wiseman wrote:
                            >>
                            >> It could of course be done, but I really don't see the point.
                            >> Any comments from other sysops?
                            >> 73, John
                            >>
                            I don't see the point either, thinking that a message send over the air is
                            either private or secure is an illusion. even when send compressed they are
                            easy to intercept and reconstruct.

                            --
                            73 Andre PE1RDW
                          • Jerry
                            Hi Yea I thought of that after I wrote that.. I knew that I used to play around with WInpack.. We are lucky in this time to have a Packet Programmer who is
                            Message 13 of 22 , Mar 9, 2013

                              Hi Yea I thought of that after I wrote that.. I knew that I used to play around with WInpack..

                               

                              We are lucky in this time to have a Packet Programmer who is actively supporting his system.. There are a few, but just a few… 

                               

                              I saw no harm in asking or even discussing your request.. please do not stop on my account…

                               

                               

                              73 Jerry

                               

                              I am hoping to be someday a pensioner myself.. Still have about 14 Years to go.. barring any winning lottery tickets… lol

                               

                               

                               

                              From: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BPQ32@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard
                              Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2013 12:47 PM
                              To: BPQ32@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: RE: [BPQ32] RE: [LinBPQ] LINBPQ SYSOP and SP titles ?

                               

                               

                              To put it in another way Jerry – ALL my radio users are pensioners (so am I) so time is irrelevant *Grin …. The author of WinPack is no longer with us …

                               

                              73, Dick ZS6RO

                               

                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

                              Sounds like something Winpack needs to deal with. ??  Anyway .. Sorry again was not trying to offend.. Just could not comprehend why anyone would concern themselves with such an inconsequential item.

                              J

                               73 jk

                            • Richard
                              The WinPack author died some years back .. Other software authors have just gone on to other things and left the latest software for others to pick up . It
                              Message 14 of 22 , Mar 9, 2013

                                The WinPack author died some years back .. Other software authors have just gone on to other things and left the ‘latest’ software for others to pick up …

                                 

                                It would appear that my request regarding the title content blocking hasn’t caught anyone’s interest therefore I hereby withdraw same (might as well sound like a lawyer *Grin) ..

                                 

                                I’m running LinBPQ version ’98 and I ticked the box where any message sent to the BBS callsign is changed and sent to the Sysop’s call – works well – thanks John ..

                                 

                                73, Dick ZS6RO

                                 

                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                                Hi Yea I thought of that after I wrote that.. I knew that I used to play around with WInpack..

                                We are lucky in this time to have a Packet Programmer who is actively supporting his system.. There are a few, but just a few… 

                                I saw no harm in asking or even discussing your request.. please do not stop on my account…

                                 73 Jerry

                                I am hoping to be someday a pensioner myself.. Still have about 14 Years to go.. barring any winning lottery tickets… lol

                                 

                                To put it in another way Jerry – ALL my radio users are pensioners (so am I) so time is irrelevant *Grin …. The author of WinPack is no longer with us …

                                73, Dick ZS6RO

                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

                                Sounds like something Winpack needs to deal with. ??  Anyway .. Sorry again was not trying to offend.. Just could not comprehend why anyone would concern themselves with such an inconsequential item.

                                J

                                 73 jk

                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.