44net September 2017

44net@mailman.ampr.org

90 participants
92 discussions

New List test
by Jerry 19 Sep '17

19 Sep '17

Test which one shows up the new one rejects me.. Jerry If this makes it I wanted to say Thanks Brian for all the hard work and dedication.

1 0

Re: [44net] The 44net mailing list is moving to a new host
by Paul 19 Sep '17

19 Sep '17

Thanks Brian For all your hard work - very much appreciated here over all these decades as well as those others that provide support to the amprnet (Just making sure this works for me) 73 Paul G4APL(GB7CIP) -- paul(a)theskywaves.net

2 1

Re: [44net] Irony explained (was Validating users)
by Bryan Fields 18 Sep '17

18 Sep '17

On 9/16/17 4:44 PM, Chris wrote: > Ah that old chestnut, it's a shame you choose to continue to be rude and > obnoxious even though you know nothing about me or my circumstances. You > know if I thought I could actually trust you to have a private conversation > instead of broadcasting my private emails to a mailing list I would be > happy to answer all your questions. I cannot have a private conversation as a means to stifle debate on a subject which affects all members of 44net. The only option we will consider is to release the source code. To do anything else when claiming to be for openness is hypocrisy. You dangle a sword over all users of 44net and think we should be grateful for not dropping it upon us. You recognize the difference between leading through coercion and leading with better ideas, no? -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net

9 12

Re: [44net] Irony explained (was Validating users)
by Bryan Fields 17 Sep '17

17 Sep '17

Please note, I'm replying onlist as Chris wants to keep this "private" so can't see how messed up this is. On 9/16/17 5:17 PM, Chris wrote: >> On 16 Sep 2017, at 21:55, Bryan Fields <Bryan(a)bryanfields.net> wrote: >> >>> You know if I thought I could actually trust you to have a private >>> conversation instead of broadcasting my private emails to a mailing >>> list I would be happy to answer all your questions. >> >> I cannot have a private conversation as a means to stifle debate on a >> subject which affects all members of 44net. > > I was not offering to debate anything, just have a private chat and answer > your questions. > >> The only option we will consider is to release the source code. To do >> anything else when claiming to be for openness is hypocrisy. > > That is your opinion, based on assumptions. Gee, if only there was an easy way to refute said "assumptions". License your code under a free software license and submit it to the users. >> You dangle a sword over all users of 44net and think we should be >> grateful for not dropping it upon us. You recognize the difference >> between leading through coercion and leading with better ideas, no? > > More opinion and assumption. FYI several other people have copies of the > source code (which incidentally is not copyrighted by me) It is. You wrote it and under federal copyright law you own it. I would refer you to https://portal.ampr.org/site-terms.php "AMPRNet refers to the group of individuals responsible for maintaining this website. " Assuming this is valid, you would be stating you own it as you are the person responsible for maintaining that website. I'll ignore the several other offensive claims on there for the time being. > and the backend > database is replicated in real time and under the control of other people. Who? > If anything were to happen to me, or indeed if I simply chose to walk away > from it, You walking away would be a good thing. The sort of "help" you've given is no different than a drug dealer giving free heroin samples. > 44Net would not suffer at all, it would just need someone else to > host the portal, and I'm sure that would not be an issue. So I fail to see > what this hypothetical sword you refer is. You own the copyright of what you wrote. You have not licensed it as free software. Under federal law you can revoke our right to use it at any time. You've now got us hooked on your non-free software and we can't function without it. When you decide things are going to change due to petty desires, we're screwed. It's bitkeeper/pf/ZFS history repeating itself. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net

3 2

Re: [44net] Irony explained (was Validating users)
by Rob Janssen 17 Sep '17

17 Sep '17

> There is another option. And I am kind of surprised it doesn't exist, > or maybe it does and I am not aware of it. > Someone who has a BGP announced allocation, like HamWan (for the US) > could create their own (open source) portal for remote (non RF-LAN) > users. They could also support things like OpenVPN in addition to > IPIP, etc. I envisioned a series of regional portals, where non-RF > users would hook up with the one closest to them. If you are in > Europe for instance, I am pretty sure there is someone over there with > a BGP announcement, and there could he a Europe portal for IPIP (and > possibly other types of connections) to register with rather than back > all the way to UCSD. Yes, we do have that here in the Netherlands and I think it is also available in a couple of outer countries (Germany, Finland come to mind). For IPIP we require registration with portal.ampr.org, because IPIP is a full mesh and we only participate in that, but for other protocols no such registration is required and the tunnel definition is just created locally at our gateway. We offer GRE, GRE/IPsec, L2TP/IPsec, IPsec tunnel, OpenVPN, and of course our radio network. Rob

1 0

Re: [44net] Irony explained (was Validating users)
by Bryan Fields 16 Sep '17

16 Sep '17

On 9/16/17 4:07 PM, Chris wrote: >> On 16 Sep 2017, at 20:02, Bryan Fields <Bryan(a)bryanfields.net> wrote: >> >>> On 9/16/17 8:25 AM, G1FEF via 44Net wrote: >>> >>>> On 16 Sep 2017, at 10:57, Josh <josh(a)festy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> I think that the development of this sort of system needs to be open and >>>> transparent to the ham community, not just a small closed group. >>> Totally agree. >>> >>> Chris >> >> How ironic. > > How so? > > Chris http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/44net/2016-September/006261.html http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/44net/2016-September/006265.html http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/44net/2016-September/006264.html http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/44net/2016-September/006266.html -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net

1 0

Re: [44net] USENET news on AMPRNet
by Rob Janssen 16 Sep '17

16 Sep '17

> A private, ham only OpenID server? that should provide authentication > as well as authorization for assorted servers. Make it stand alone & > not tied to any particular service like amprnet or echolink or LOTW. > make it freely accessible to anyone who wants to authenticate a ham > anywhere. Yes, that is the basic idea, but it should not be limited to website usage and it should be possible to retrieve attributes such as "is this a verified licensed hamradio operator". The user list could contain outsiders, unverified hams and verified hams, and the facilities available to them could be different. E.g. a user who is not a verified ham would not be able to use an Echolink-like service, but they could read and contribute to a mailinglist. The service should offer some different APIs, e.g. RADIUS for user/password authentication and maybe something like OpenID for website logon. When a user has a valid account, he should be able to obtain client certificates for use in services where that is appropriate. The PKI design has to be careful, with some attention to detail a lot of mishaps can be avoided. This requires expertise in the matter. Rob

7 8

Re: [44net] USENET news on AMPRNet
by Ron Gibson 15 Sep '17

15 Sep '17

Hi Chris, I just tried your 44.131.151.2 NNTP server from my 44.135.92.10 machine and was refused. Ron VE3CGR > We've been running a news server (inn) for years. I've already put reader access in for ampr.org hosts to provide the same service that Brian provided on the machine that has died and is being decommissioned, it's on 44.131.151.2 or on the public Internet as nntp.comgw.net > It wouldn't be difficult to setup some local groups just for amprnet use, it would also be fairly trivial to pipe this mailing list into a local group if that is of interest to anyone? > Chris

1 0

Re: [44net] USENET news on AMPRNet
by Ron Gibson 15 Sep '17

15 Sep '17

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/44net/attachments/20170915/b254fbc…>

1 0

Online Authentication for Ham Sites and Services (was: USENET news on AMPRNet)
by Cory (NQ1E) 15 Sep '17

15 Sep '17

> A private, ham only OpenID server? This is similar to an idea I had several years back (2012 according to the registration for my unused domain hamauth.com), but I couldn't find anyone else at the time who was interested in it. As a result, it never won any battles for my limited availability of time to work on it. :( The basic idea was to define various assurance levels that people could meet using various methods. Then, allow amateur radio websites and services to define what level of assurance they need and allow them the option to easily authenticate their users using a hosted service (using things like OpenID or OAuth). Those levels could be something like: - Identity, call sign, operating privileges, and mailing address all verified - Call sign, operating privileges, and mailing address verified (LotW gets us here) - Call sign and operating privileges verified (We can verify their license is valid, but only assume they're the legitimate holder of it until it's challenged, somewhat like how qrz.com does it) - Call sign claimed (not all countries have license info online for verifying privileges) - Non-amateur (not yet licensed) For example, if a user can prove to us they have control over a valid LotW certificate, they would get one of the highest levels of assurance because we know the ARRL has already confirmed the validity of their license and that they can receive mail at the license address. The user would then be able to login with their call sign on just about any site that chooses to use our service for authentication. However, some sites may not choose to trust our third party service directly, so we could also be a resource on how they could setup their own authentication and verification schemes. While it might be a pain to get a LotW certificate, they are the only organization I'm aware of that offers to authenticate amateurs from any country. It's essentially a service they created to be globally trusted in order to protect the integrity of their contests. In the past they've also expressed a willingness to allow their service to be used for other general amateur authentication purposes, so I don't think we need to worry about them objecting to anything like this. Also, there's no reason why the ARRL has to be the only source of that trust. For example, if you have a valid client certificate loaded in your browser with your call sign in the right place, we'll accept it on the HamWAN portal ( https://encrypted.hamwan.org/ ) whether it's signed by ARRL, or of it's signed by HamWAN's own certificate authority. If there are other organizations in other countries that can authenticate licenses in an easier fashion, we can definitely include them in the process. They way other amateur services would just need to check a box that says they trust that entity to validate users from that country. I'm exceeded to see several others interested in this, but since it's off-topic for this reflector, please join me in the new hamauth group. ;) Click: https://groups.io/g/hamauth or Email: hamauth+subscribe(a)groups.io Cory NQ1E

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net September 2017