[nos-bbs] TELpac nodes and JNOS (based on a much earlier post)

[Bill Vodall WA7NWP]

Finally getting a chance to replay to Maiko's reply on putting the telpac_node
server into JNOS...

----- Original Message ----- 

>
> > On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Bill Vodall wrote:
> >
> > > All this chat and some of my local on the air activity has me curious
> > > to try JNOS to Winlink by the TelPack client interface. Since it uses
> > > the simple SP/LM/RM commands it should be close to working.
> >
> > xNOS *is* a TelPac server in a sense. The packet user out in the
> > field connects to xNOS directly, and can easily and reliably send
> > email to anyone in the world from the prompt - provided the NOS
> > system is configured to do that, like mine is here in Winnipeg.

Yes.  Absolutely.  Much much more then a telpac_node!

> > This was possible YEARS AGO already, before Telpac came out.

1993 or so...

> > What is a bit mind boggling to me is this - Telpac nodes apparently have
> > the ability to connect to an FBB or JNOS server over the internet
> > and deliver the mail that way. BUT wait, the NOS servers already
> > have the ability (for years) to accept DIRECT packet connections
> > from packet users out in the field, and deliver the mail themselves.
> > In which case Telpac becomes an extra step in between, one that is
> > not required for those cases.

Yes.  JNOS is  both telpac_node (the packet to Internet gateway) as well as the
back end server.


> > > The only trick part that might take some tweaking of the code is the
> > > sending of regular Email via Winlink.  That requires the format:
> > >
> > >   sp smtp:wa7nwp at jnos.org
> >
> > Most xNOS have built in SMTP services. Again, NOS is fully capable of
> > sending email on it's own. What's the point of forwarding it over a Telpac
> > client interface over the internet to a WinLink system for delivery
> > to it's destination ?

This is the key that's being missed.

The big advantage of  Winlink2k is not technical.   Outside of a couple good tweaks
for optimizing to use RF, they're mostly re-inventing long existing internet technology.  No
big deal.  BUT...  BUT..   This is the key!!!

JNOS (and linux) is an incredible pain to setup and configure.  It takes a lot of time and effort
to get a system running and stable.  It's a big thing.  It's also a complicated process
that's beyond what most hams want, or need, to invest.

Winlink removes that configuration hassle and complexity from the system for the individual
users.   They've done the hard work that users don't see.   I have no doubt that many many
hours are invested each week to keep things working like it does.

Secondly, they provide a common standard naming scheme.  @winlink.org.   It doesn't
matter how I access the winlink system -  telpac_node, Internet, web interface, etc, - it's all
the same system with the same Email address and same mailbox.

That could all be done elsewhere,  but nobody has.

So - wl2k gives a far simpler setup and a common addressing scheme.  Those are, in general,
a good thing for a communications system.   They are also major weaknesses in the wl2k system but
that's another discussion.


Wl2k is a system worthy of support.  So if there's a means to make a minor investment to support
that system, I think it should be done.   I believe EVERY linux ax25 system on the web should
be running telpac_node simply because it costs so little to do it and it may some time really be
useful.   If we could add all the *NOS systems to that -- it would be IM!HO a good thing.

I believe it's like busses and cars.   The bus systems are a good thing.  It costs the rider little
to get
from point A to point B.  Somebody else does all the setup, maintenance and operations.   We riders
fit to their schedule and routes.  While it's probably not a perfect match with our needs, it's good
enough.    On the other hand, most of us have our own vehicles that allow us to go where we want
when we want.  The cost of that convenince and flexibility is the purchase price, the insurance, the
repairs, pumping gas, etc.   Lots more invested and it's well worth it.   I'm happy we have both.

Winlink2k is the "bus system" of ham communications.   Somebody else does the maintenance and
background work and the "riders" can get on with a minimal investment.   JNOS/LINUX is the
"private automobile" that goes anywhere at any time but has the far greater investment.


> > > There are two potential interfaces to Winlink here.
> >
> > > AX25 to a Telpac(_node on linux) or
> >
> > For those running JNOS systems, there is no need to run a Telpac
> > node if all they want to do is deliver email.

True.  But that doesn't bring along the "system" benefits of the Winlink system.

Sending Email isn't like it used to be.   That are far more rules to be followed
these days and it's pretty fussy.   Adding the ampr.org baggage makes it even harder.
I consider it a "week" project to setup a JNOS or linux box to send Email over the air
to the Internet.  This is work already done and in put in place by WL2K.

> > > Telnet to their servers at port 12001.
> >
> > I don't plan on it. I don't see the point.

The point is to support an useful and valuable system.   It's good to support busses even is we
car drivers seldom use them.

(Maiko, I'm not "wishing strongly" for you to actually add telpac_node.  I'll do it
myself one of these months if nobody beats me to it.   I'm just going over the issues here...)

> > > telpac_node/LinuX offers no GUI or other nice features,
> > > it is just a small tool used like the well known ax25-tools
> > > together with ax25d.
> >
> > Again it comes down to choice. You can go the ax25 tools/utils
> > route, you can go the NOS route, or you can go the Windows route
> > with the Telpac node software.

Think of it in terms of communications systems -- not technology.    My cohorts
around the Puget Sound built an incredible technology network.   Nobody used it
and it's essentiall dead since there was no "system" plan.   Another even more ambitious
project is currently withering on the vine for the same reason.    WL2K, on the other hand,
has a plan and a system.   It's to our benefit to support that system -- specially since the
cost of doing so is so low.

 > > Maiko Langelaar / VE4KLM

For all my comments for WL2K, I'm not really a big supporter.  They're doing some good
work and have done many things right for the Ham/Packet/RF to Internet Interface.  It's
frustrating knowing that we've had so much more technology available (even NOS on DOS)
for 10+ years that's essentially unknown and unused.  I believe that the "WL2K" system is
a good place holder and step forward.   I'm very much looking forward to the near future when
a couple techniques become available that will let us *NOS automobile drivers use the express lanes
along with the winlink busses...  (  AIRMAIL - JNOS forwarding.   Linux (NOS) Email by
bundled compressed UUCP style file exchanges over packet...)

>

73,
Bill - WA7NWP

PS.   YAPP - that's the way to exchange files over packet.  I'm digging now for Linux tools
to use it from the command line.