On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:52 AM, David Bastress <BASTRESS at cedarville.edu> wrote: > However, I don't quite understand your statement, "We actually have a pretty > good example of something that works surprisingly well -- PACTOR. If you > have used the WinLink or SailMail systems you know what I mean."? How do > Winlink and Sailmail qualify as examples of "independent of established > infrastructure"?? Both of those depend on the internet infrastructure to > work at some point in most cases!!
Certainly that is how they are used much of the time but they do not *require* the infrastructure to function. You can send and receive email via a WinLink or SailMail station without that mail traversing the Internet. And it should be possible to adapt the system to do store-and-forward entirely via HF. I direct you to the venerable uucp system if you wish to see an example of how that might work. But you seem to be missing the point which is that we have an example of a system that will establish a link, adapt the link to prevailing conditions, and transfer information, all without humans fiddling with it (for the most part). Yes a human on one end must initiate the connection but even then it could be completely automated without too much difficulty. And please do not get me wrong -- I do *not* think that PACTOR + AirMail represents the final endpoint in automated digital communications over HF. I was simply pointing to PACTOR + Airmail as an interesting experiment that has done a great deal in this area and that it work surprisingly well despite its limitations. It is an excellent springboard from which we can ask two key questions: 1. What does this system do well? 2. How can it be improved upon? -- 73 de Brian, WB6RQN/J79BPL
