Jeff,

I'm not familar with JNOS but this sounds like a routing problem.

Does each local user have their own mail queue? Under linux, each user has a
file under /var/spool/mail. Mail coming into the box is transferred into a
file under /var/spool/mail by the sendmail program. Sendmail looks up each
destination address in an 'aliases' file (/etc/aliases or
/etc/mail/aliases), if it isn't found there it is written into a file in
the /var/spool/mail directory. The file is given the name of the
destination address (i.e. the local user). If it is found in the aliases
file, the real name stored in the aliases file is substituted for the
destination address and then the message is written into the correct file
under the /var/spool/mail directory.

It sounds like you either have no program like sendmail looking at the
incoming mail queue in order to deliver it locally or your local users are
not defined to the linux system.

Does JNOS have a mail transport agent process that perhaps isn't getting
started? Are all local users defined properly?

I hope this gives you a place to start.

Tim ab0wr


Jeff Camp wrote:



I'm in the process of installing JNOS 111f for Linux and have run into a
problem. When a user sends a message to another local user, the system
responds with a "Msg queued" message, but the message is never delivered.
If I log in as Sysop, I can't see any messages. If I look in the
/spool/mqueue I can see all the messages sitting there.

Anyone have any suggestions on where to start?

Thanks,
Jeff
N0WJP

"Jeff Camp" wrote in message
news:zNQkb.21429$iq3.15134@okepread01...


If I'm an insect, then you're an antique.

Hey Bub, you're the one pushing the latest packet radio technology from the
1980's... Your "protocol warrior" attitude is 1980's vintage as well. You're
the antique, OM... Your bogus attitude is as obsolete as the bogus software
you are struggling with.

Insect.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"Jeff Camp" wrote in message
news:zNQkb.21429$iq3.15134@okepread01...


If I'm an insect, then you're an antique.

Hey Bub, you're the one pushing the latest packet radio technology from the
1980's... Your "protocol warrior" attitude is 1980's vintage as well. You're
the antique, OM... Your bogus attitude is as obsolete as the bogus software
you are struggling with.

Insect.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

I run around with some Drag racing guys (Top Fuel, Funny Cars, Gassers, etc),
and just like Hams, they are super-critical about what a "true hot rodder" should
have on his car. I know for a fact that these guys blow **** up even if it was gold
plated, but yet they keep buying the same **** because everyone else will label
them a traitor or a poster-boy for some manufacturer. There's some people who
can't operate without negative peer pressure. They wrap their positive messages in
negative slants about one thing or another.

You can't change them, and they are too stupid to change themselves.

"Jeff Camp" wrote
Yeah, I'm in real trouble now.

Charles, why don't you join us in the 21st century? It's attitudes like
yours that have made ham radio just a "curiosity" rather than a community of
dedicated experimenters who develop new communications technology before the
commercial interests can do it. If I'm an insect, then you're an antique.

As for HF forwarding I guess we'll wait and see. I'll attempt to get back
into HF forwarding once my VHF, UHF and microwave links are back up.

73,
Jeff
N0WJP


"Gene Storey" wrote in message

Oh ****! You made the "Director" mad...

"charlesb" wrote

Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Director: USPacket.Net

I run around with some Drag racing guys (Top Fuel, Funny Cars, Gassers, etc),
and just like Hams, they are super-critical about what a "true hot rodder" should
have on his car. I know for a fact that these guys blow **** up even if it was gold
plated, but yet they keep buying the same **** because everyone else will label
them a traitor or a poster-boy for some manufacturer. There's some people who
can't operate without negative peer pressure. They wrap their positive messages in
negative slants about one thing or another.

You can't change them, and they are too stupid to change themselves.

"Jeff Camp" wrote
Yeah, I'm in real trouble now.

Charles, why don't you join us in the 21st century? It's attitudes like
yours that have made ham radio just a "curiosity" rather than a community of
dedicated experimenters who develop new communications technology before the
commercial interests can do it. If I'm an insect, then you're an antique.

As for HF forwarding I guess we'll wait and see. I'll attempt to get back
into HF forwarding once my VHF, UHF and microwave links are back up.

73,
Jeff
N0WJP


"Gene Storey" wrote in message

Oh ****! You made the "Director" mad...

"charlesb" wrote

Charles Brabham, N5PVL
Director: USPacket.Net

And now the "Directors" Amen corner has sung his spiritual...

"Hank Oredson" wrote

Ah yes! The dedicated Land Line Lid!
Spouting the same drivel and lies they all do.

And now the "Directors" Amen corner has sung his spiritual...

"Hank Oredson" wrote

Ah yes! The dedicated Land Line Lid!
Spouting the same drivel and lies they all do.

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news:XbZkb.4232$5c2.1533@okepread03...
I run around with some Drag racing guys (Top Fuel, Funny Cars, Gassers,
etc),
and just like Hams, they are super-critical about what a "true hot rodder"
should
have on his car. I know for a fact that these guys blow **** up even if
it was gold
plated, but yet they keep buying the same **** because everyone else will
label
them a traitor or a poster-boy for some manufacturer. There's some people
who
can't operate without negative peer pressure. They wrap their positive
messages in
negative slants about one thing or another.

You can't change them, and they are too stupid to change themselves.


Yes, you are right, Gene... In this case, Internet junkies think it's cool
to disrupt the amateur radio hobby because ham radio is not "IP", or it's
not "fast enough", or - whatever. ( Insert anti-ham sentiment or whiney
excuse here. ) You can't change them, and they are too stupid to change
themselves.

Kind of like a guy who insists upon sneaking a little nitro to his tank in a
gas competition so that he can "win", LandLine Lids undermine the entire
concept of Amateur Radio ( Using Radio, Duh! ) by using Internet links as
part of the packet radio network and so are not really "winners"... They are
just disruptive jerk-offs. - You can't change them, and they are too stupid
to change themselves.

Insects.

Ham Radio is a much more serious hobby than hotrodding, in that a central
part of our reason for being is to provide independent, alternative
emergency communications during the course of a disaster or emergency. The
activities of amateur radio operators save lives and property. We do this by
developing and maintaining day to day ham radio communications so that we
will be there in time of need. This has become even more important since the
9/11 attack, as the subsequent affilliation of the ARRL with the Dept. of
Homeland Security would indicate to anybody who is not completely
brain-dead.

Non-ham communication links have no place whatsoever within an amateur radio
network, as they are the very type of communications that we are supposed to
be backing up. - Hopefully a few of us here are intelligent enough to
understand the fact that you cannot "back up" a communications system that
you are utterly dependent upon. - It would be like having a special
telephone number to call, in case the phones go dead. - Useless in your hour
of need.

So when insectoid types disrupt the ham radio hobby by imposing unwanted,
inappropriate non-ham links within our amateur packet radio network, they
are not just being jerkoffs, they are directly endangering human lives and
property by interfering with the ability of amateur radio operators to
fulfill one of our primary reasons for being - emergency communications.

Tell you what, Gene... I'll send an note to the Dept of Homeland Security
and see how they feel about people deliberately interfering with hams trying
to provide alternative, independent emergency communications capability.
They may have some suggestions for dealing with persons who insist upon
undercutting and interfering with amateur radio operators engaged in
activities related to our affiliation with Homeland Defense, or may know who
to talk to in the FCC about this matter. There's really no reason for hams
to have to tolerate this kind of disruptive, irresponsible behavior any
more.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news:XbZkb.4232$5c2.1533@okepread03...
I run around with some Drag racing guys (Top Fuel, Funny Cars, Gassers,
etc),
and just like Hams, they are super-critical about what a "true hot rodder"
should
have on his car. I know for a fact that these guys blow **** up even if
it was gold
plated, but yet they keep buying the same **** because everyone else will
label
them a traitor or a poster-boy for some manufacturer. There's some people
who
can't operate without negative peer pressure. They wrap their positive
messages in
negative slants about one thing or another.

You can't change them, and they are too stupid to change themselves.


Yes, you are right, Gene... In this case, Internet junkies think it's cool
to disrupt the amateur radio hobby because ham radio is not "IP", or it's
not "fast enough", or - whatever. ( Insert anti-ham sentiment or whiney
excuse here. ) You can't change them, and they are too stupid to change
themselves.

Kind of like a guy who insists upon sneaking a little nitro to his tank in a
gas competition so that he can "win", LandLine Lids undermine the entire
concept of Amateur Radio ( Using Radio, Duh! ) by using Internet links as
part of the packet radio network and so are not really "winners"... They are
just disruptive jerk-offs. - You can't change them, and they are too stupid
to change themselves.

Insects.

Ham Radio is a much more serious hobby than hotrodding, in that a central
part of our reason for being is to provide independent, alternative
emergency communications during the course of a disaster or emergency. The
activities of amateur radio operators save lives and property. We do this by
developing and maintaining day to day ham radio communications so that we
will be there in time of need. This has become even more important since the
9/11 attack, as the subsequent affilliation of the ARRL with the Dept. of
Homeland Security would indicate to anybody who is not completely
brain-dead.

Non-ham communication links have no place whatsoever within an amateur radio
network, as they are the very type of communications that we are supposed to
be backing up. - Hopefully a few of us here are intelligent enough to
understand the fact that you cannot "back up" a communications system that
you are utterly dependent upon. - It would be like having a special
telephone number to call, in case the phones go dead. - Useless in your hour
of need.

So when insectoid types disrupt the ham radio hobby by imposing unwanted,
inappropriate non-ham links within our amateur packet radio network, they
are not just being jerkoffs, they are directly endangering human lives and
property by interfering with the ability of amateur radio operators to
fulfill one of our primary reasons for being - emergency communications.

Tell you what, Gene... I'll send an note to the Dept of Homeland Security
and see how they feel about people deliberately interfering with hams trying
to provide alternative, independent emergency communications capability.
They may have some suggestions for dealing with persons who insist upon
undercutting and interfering with amateur radio operators engaged in
activities related to our affiliation with Homeland Defense, or may know who
to talk to in the FCC about this matter. There's really no reason for hams
to have to tolerate this kind of disruptive, irresponsible behavior any
more.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

"Jeff Camp" wrote in message
news:ni_kb.21532$iq3.2530@okepread01...
Charles --

Put your money where your mouth is. If you're interested in really seeing
what the Department of Homeland Security thinks about the issue, please
drop
them a note about me. I'd be happy to be your "test case" on internet
forwarding. My contact info is good in the callbook and QRZ.COM.

You'll have to settle for being "generic" unless that kind of detail is
actually called for. There are dozens of gateway stations. What I will be
doing is demonstrating how the imposition of non-ham links into the amateur
radio digital network has undercut and interfered with that network, a
result of packet/internet gateways being unregulated in the United States.

I'm in a good position to do that, as I was a participant in the global HF
digital network that existed prior to the introduction of non-ham links, and
am aware of the mechanism by which those unwanted non-ham links destroyed
the network within just a few years. It's fairly easy to demonstrate, and
most packet enthusiasts who were around at the time are familiar with how it
worked. There was a two-pronged approach, where some HF forwarders were
starved for traffic to send, while others were grossly overloaded, way
beyond capacity. Prior to the introduction of the non-ham links, the global
HF net had operated smoothly and reliably. It was and still is the most
significant example of global cooperation among ham radio operators - ever.
Unregulated gateways destroyed that.

I was also intimately associated with an advanced, large-scale VHF/UHF
packet radio network (TexNet) that started replacing it's existing 9.6kb
backbone links with Internet connections, and totally self-destructed within
a few years of that move. When the Internet became widely available, all of
the large-scale VHF/UHF packet networks naturally took a hit. - But all of
them survived and are now growing again except TexNet, which is the only big
packet net to completely disappear from the face of the Earth. At one time
it had over 100 nodes, covering three states. All gone, now. Non-ham links
are the kiss of death.

I can demonstrate packet networks located overseas that operated under
regulations that did not allow the imposition of non-ham links. Without
exception, those networks continued to advance and grow the entire time the
US network, and the global HF net were disrupted and lost coherency. Those
folks use 9.6kb - 19.2kb for access these days, with a lot of the backbone
being 19.2 fulldup to 72.8 fulldup. All ham radio, with voice over packet
and neat stuff like that. This network has a footprint of close to 600-800
miles, maybe better. Nice what you can accomplish, when you stay on-mission
and concentrate on doing things with radio. I do not think it will be hard
to demonstrate that we should be doing that in the US, too. All we need is a
reg that forbids the insertion of non-ham links into a ham radio network, so
we can get back on-mission again.

Did you know that prior to the introduction of non-ham links into the US
packet network, we provided leadership to the world in this area with the
most widespread, sophisticated packet network on the planet?

I can also demonstrate that the only rapidly growing packet network in the
US today ( 140+ nodes in a few years ) specifically does not allow non-ham
links. They simply shut offenders out of the system, and stick with radio.
They have the fastest growing, most advanced packet network in the US to
show for it.

The thing about this is: There is no recorded case of a large-scale VHF/UHF
network surviving the wide-spread imposition of non-ham links. The global HF
network was killed by non-ham links as soon as the Internet made them
available. By way of contrast, there is no record of a packet network that
banned non-ham links which has not steadily advanced and grown, the whole
time. If you graph it, you can show a direct relationship between the
imposition of non-ham links and the decline of a packet radio network's perf
ormance and utility. It has the same end effect as malicious interference,
and should be regulated as such, for that reason.

Note: The idea is ban non-ham links within the ham network, not the use of
gateways. Gateways are important because they provide a way for the two
networks to communicate with each other, so don't look for me to propose
throwing tossing the baby out with the bath water, as some have suggested.
The idea is to be able to provide effective, alternate emergency
communications, and gateways are essential for that task, among others. ANY
tool can hurt you if you use it improperly, and can also be of great benefit
if you don't grab the wrong end of it. All we need is a reg that prohibits
improper use of gateways.


I'll make you a deal. If they agree with you that internet forwarding
should not be allowed for the purposes you have listed, then I'll gladly
disconnect my system from the internet and unconditionally apologize to
you
here or in any forum you choose. If they decide that internet forwarding
poses no threat from their perspective, you can apologize to me here and
stop harassing those of us who would like to use the internet for
forwarding
in addition to RF. Do you have the nerve to back up what you say?

I have the nerve to back up anything I say, but that does not mean that I
will accept a juvenile challenge as you have put forward here. What I will
do is send a note to the Homeland Security folks, as I said.


Also, if you're able to work HF, then I hang out on 7261 or thereabouts
after 10:00PM central time (usually 7281 before 10) and would love to have
you check into the 1721 group. They don't have anything to do with packet
or forwarding, but they're a great group of people and everyone's welcome.


Thanks, but I hardly ever get lower than 30 meters, or use a mike on HF
these days. I live at the extreme southern tip of Texas, so its doubful that
we could hear each other on 40 meters in any case!

Charles Brabham, N5PVL