ARRL EComms Messaging System...WinLink?

[Bill Vodall]

> 
> Winlink is a viable system for most of this already, and their has been
> significant work toward integrating Winlink capabilities into the NTS, NTSD,
> ARES and RACES operations. The ARRL will soon release a fantastic outline of
> all of this on their website. I've been on a committee reviewing some of it.
> Much of this work could also be used to integrate any other viable network,
> but none other exists, at least not with the capability to handle things on
> this level.

The network or the technology?   While I'm supporting 90% of what the WDT (Winlink
Development Team) is doing, this is one place where they are neglecting to recognize
what already exists -- both technology and Network.

A simple Linux community packet server can do 10 times what one of these new fangled
Winlink mailboxes can.  It's old and proven technology.  This simple fact is not being
mentioned.  Even JNOS, for the barbs it's been taking on the Winlink reflector, can actually
do more then a Winlink mailbox.  And it's 10+ years old.   Unfortunately, a Linux server
is 10 times more complicated to setup and run..   (We need to get more of the community
wireless WiFi folks on board to help...)

There are, of course, specialized things Winlink does much better.  In addition, Winlink is easier
for the clients to set up as the core few are handling the serious technology issues and shielding
the ham masses.   That's not a bad thing.

> To clarify, we have this with Winlink now: All local VHF/UHF traffic can
> continue to be handled by a Winlink Emergency PMBO even in the event the
> internet fails. Anything needing to get out of the area can be easily
> relayed over HF to a PMBO outside the effected areas. That's available now.

It has been for 15 years by JNOS or Linux, execpt for the HF part...

> This will eventually be partially automated, but will require a manually
> initiated connection so as to avoid the possibility of interference to other
> uses, and other services. Fully automated HF is likely a mistake unless much
> more busy channel detection can be developed.

Even manually-initiated connections cause interference with existing contacts.  This
is a serious issue.  The systems need their own band space.

> Thanks to all working on this. I'm enjoying playing with Linux, and hope it
> might actually prove useful at some point, but I have my doubts...

So the telpack_node software we have running on multiple Linux stations around the Puget
Sound area -- while these systems provide many additional services -- isn't useful?

Winlink is an incredible system.  No doubt about that.   But it's certainly not the
only nor the best -- for everything.  We have to recognize and use everything that's out there.

Bill - WA7NWP