Personally, I think Facebook is a terrible choice. User information there is not protected and is monetized. As a discussion forum it is useless. It is ad laden, tracker laden and not user friendly. I don't have a Facebook account anymore and I am not interested in getting one.
This forum email list works fine for me. If we need another email server there are several in the amateur radio community to chose from, including TAPR. If we want a commercialized product, there is groups.io which has a large community of ham radio related lists, mostly migrated from yahoo.
Just my opinion.
73 de bill K7WXW
> How about we start a second email list to discuss where to have future
> discussions?
The advantage of a USENET server is that you can create groups for different types of
discussion. Clients also typically offer "kill thread" functionality that makes them
ignore future postings in the same thread.
Rob
Bill,
The best person to answer is Brian Kantor. Till he chimes in...
I don't expect to see IPv4 switched off on the general internet in my
lifetime. The adoption rate of v6 is pretty sad. We don't even have
everyone dual stacks yet.
There has been some casual discussions from foreign hams to try and
get an IPv6 allocation for ham radio from RIPE ( I believe).. but
there will be so many addresses available I am not even sure ham radio
needs its own allocation.
Moving forward the whole online ham authentication thing (that OH7LZB
has pointed out) makes more sense in my opinion. Use one of your
many-many IPv6 addreses from your ISP, but add some sort of
authentication to the process of interacting with other ham services.
That is presently a lure of 44net.. knowing the guy on the other end
is a ham, and whatever traffic is being generated (VOIP, data etc)
should it key an actual transmitter it will be legit.
[There was a proposal in 1998 to encode a "call sign" into IPv6
address titled "Take the Next Step with the Next Generation Protocol"
by Naoto Shimazaki. And in 2012 a few members from the Mesa Amateur
Radio Club of Arizona took this to code.)
I guess the more pertinent questions I have for Brian would be:
Are there a plan so that folks who only have IPv6 commercial address
or are suck behind carrier grade IPv4 with no firewall access (some
cellular carriers presently) can participate with the amprnet? In
other words are there plans to make amprgw dual stack?
73
Steve, KB9MWR
>OM,
>
>I'm a bit behind the times, so please bear with me. Is there a plan
>and schedule for ampr.net to convert to IPv6?
>
>Is there a consensus on the conversion? We're a pretty small part of the net, after all, and my first >reaction to thinking of IPv6 is "Do I have to?"
>
>BTW, will ucsd be able to tunnel IPv4 44/8 addresses over IPv6?
>
>As I said, I'm out of practice with networking, and I just realized that I don't know if/when the ampr.net >will switchover, nor how it will affect the existing 44/8 allocations. Brian?
>
>Thanks for your time.
>
>73,
>
>Bill, W4EWH
Not a fan of facebook either. this email list works just fine for me.
73 Russ WL7LP
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 9/10/17, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)UCSD.Edu> wrote:
Subject: Re: [44net] New Facebook Group
To: "AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2017, 6:16 PM
I think this was a bad idea.
- Brian
On
Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 09:24:38PM -0400, Bill Horne wrote:
> I've put up a new group on Facebook,
called "AmprNet." The title is short
> and to the point, but doesn't call out
our IPv4 history.
>
>
Feel free to join and comment.
>
> 73,
>
> Bill W4EWH
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Ronen wrote:
> Idont understand the huge objection you all have for facebook its much better you can post Photos Videos files ETC
In 25 years being involved with net 44, I don't ever remember a photo or video being required.
I cannot think of any way that it is better than a concise archive of technical text which is searchable
and cached onto my PC as a mail file. It can't be manipulated or deleted without my consent.
I don't wish to be exploited/monetised so will not do business with Facebook. Reminder:
https://notallbits.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/facebookandyou.jpg
Therefore I shall not consider visiting any Facebook material.
Jason G7OCD
Except that it excludes all of us that don't use facebook from those discussions, which seems like a high price to pay for a formatting change.
Josh
-------- Original message --------
From: Lin Holcomb <LHolcomb(a)clearqualitygroup.com>
Date: 11/09/2017 12:46 (GMT+10:00)
To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: [44net] New Facebook Group
Brian,
It is a much cleaner discussion format than email.
Lin
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote:
> I think this was a bad idea.
> - Brian
>
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 09:24:38PM -0400, Bill Horne wrote:
> > I've put up a new group on Facebook, called "AmprNet." The title is short
> > and to the point, but doesn't call out our IPv4 history.
> >
> > Feel free to join and comment.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Bill W4EWH
> _________________________________________
> 44Net mailing list
> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
>
--
Lin Holcomb
Office: +1 404 806 5412
Mobile: +1 404 933 1595
Fax: +1 404 348 4250
> Well Bill, what has happened is that USENET has condensed into
> a few central sites exchanging the articles, and accepting subscriptions
> from people who still want to read/post to the newsgroups. It's the
> distributed model that's died.
But that is just the "story of the internet". It has happened to (almost)
all services on internet. Even e-mail, traditionally a very distributed
service, is now mostly offered by a few central sites like gmail.com and
outlook.com/hotmail.com.
Sure, in implementation those central sites still often are distributed
(being hosted in many different datacenters on many servers all serving the
same domain name), but it no longer is the big peer-to-peer network that
it once was. This also explains the slow take-off of IPv6: there is rarely
a need anymore for a different address for everyone.
Rob
Hi guys,
Could you please check if your email clients do support threads
properly? At least some of you are using ones that do not answer in a
same thread but create a new one. For me it makes this list unreadable
and a whole mailbox cluttered.
I'm looking mostly at (random order, just what I've came across) Daniel
Curry, Steve L and Rob Janssen, but it's important that we all keep the
high standards ;)
--
All the best
Paweł SQ9PID
I was working at Sun Micro system with Sunos 3.2 and up to Solaris 4.x.
That thing I did not like about 3.2 and 3.5 is that you had to mount the
ND partion user home directory to fixed a problem. There was no CD
directory command.
--
Daniel Curry
California American Legion Amateur Radio
Area 2 Commission and Chairman.
US Air Force Veteran
IPV6 Sage Certified
PGP: AD5A 96DC 7556 A020 B8E7 0E4D 5D5E 9BA5 C83E 8C92
San Francisco/Silicon Valley AmprNet Co-coordinator [44.4.0.0/16]
