Results: Internet visaLIA

Tue Apr 19 10:36:54 EDT 1994

Initially, I was going to send this to only XE1/AA6RX, but once I got
into it, I thought maybe all of you should be subjected to my ramblings.


I got to meet N6TR/7/6 and he finally admitted that the two radio sprint
thing is just for the 300+ qso guys.  He kinda said that I should learn
how to use one radio first.  I'm not quite sure how to take this, but I
in my heart, I know he's right.

Trey walked by me a couple of times and muttered "N4BO  hahahaha "

TV Bob wanted to know if we were going to Glenn County again for CQP,
since this rare one was overbooked last year.  We (AA6LB/M) were really
urged to go there and when we showed up, we found that AD6E was mounting
an attempted M/M effort from the same county.

Met Larry, N6AZE - nice guy

Listened to Dave K6LL say "I like to beat the big guys". He says his
great signal is due to the high water table of saline solution that is
useless for anything else but rf reflectivity.  I think we all know that
his operating skill adds about 30 db to that.

Talked to Joe, W5ASP and listened to his tale of woe relating to using
Tree's program for the first time during sprINT.  Another great guy.

Met Eric, k3na and Ward N0ax.  wait till you see what they come up with
as far as operator rating.  I told Ward that I hope they have a "D"
division like the one I play racquetball in.

Worked Bill, KM9P/M (cw, of course) on Saturday PM on the way to Henry
hospitality event.  We were also mobile.  Bill wanted to pass his
greetings to W6QHS and WN4KKN.  I'm sad to say that he had the best
signal on 20m cw even when mobile.

The silliest incident though, was, when John K2MM, gave me a new NCCC
badge with............."Not N4BO" engraved on it.  This will never end.


Eric, NV6O
edwoods at

>From drs at (Doug Snowden)  Tue Apr 19 18:27:26 1994
From: drs at (Doug Snowden) (Doug Snowden)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 13:27:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 40 Meter Beams
Message-ID: <9404191727.AA97569 at rs2>

What are the available options for 40 meter beams that are less than full size?
And what are the experiences of net members with them? I'd like to put up some
sort of beam for 40, but suspect that the best I could do is some sort of
loaded 2 element beam. Are they worth the trouble? I am presently using an
elevated full size vertical for 40m and it works very well. It is about 20 ft
off the ground and has 8 radials. Think a 2 element loaded beam would beat it?

thanks, Doug, N4IJ                      

                     |       Doug Snowden        |
                     |           N4IJ            | 
                     | email: drs at |

>From jlgiasi at umassmed.UMMED.EDU (John L. Luigi Giasi)  Tue Apr 19 18:40:13 1994
From: jlgiasi at umassmed.UMMED.EDU (John L. Luigi Giasi) (John L. Luigi Giasi)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 94 13:40:13 EDT
Subject: K1VR net addressing
Message-ID: <9404191740.AA06791 at umassmed.UMMED.EDU>


The cq-contest list is set up so that only those subscribed can send
through the reflector, Fred's UUCP and varying headers confuse the
list software as his send-to address and his from differ causing the
list software to think he is unsubscribed... There is the issue of
whether the list software should "smarten up" or the UUUCP method
Fred uses should hide it flaws better.

In the message from DKMC........
-> 1.  What is the significance of the repeated callsign and the exclamation
-> point in front?

Exclamations are part of an older form of addressing called UUCP
source routing. (UUCP standing for Unix-to-Unix CoPy). In Fred's
situation, UUCP source routing forms PART of his address,
as his PC is a UUCP host. 

The computer that Fred          The user on the PC named k1vr, since
has access to. (shack PC)       Fred is the only user it is a bit
The shack PC is named k1vr      confusing, but their must be a user
                           |    (it is k1vr) and a computer(also k1vr)
the UUNET registered       |    |
computer the Fred's PC     |    |     jjmhome is registered
calls to initiate UUCP     |    |     with uunet for routing of email
                    |      |    |     |
                   \ /    \ /  \ /   \ /
         -> >From jjmhome!k1vr!k1vr at Mon Apr 18 13:09:27 1994

Some of the confusion results from the repeated k1vr (which you will
see later is the reverse of the k1vr%k1vr). So say I had an
"account" on Fred's machine (which is not setup to handle more that
one user, but let's pretend it was). My address in this format
would be:
                  jjmhome!k1vr!aa1aa at

When you email across the internet to either above address.. The
sending host accesses DNS (Domain name service) to find out the IP
address of, telnets to the smtp (simple mail transfer
protocol) port and delivers the mail to As far as your 
gateway is concerned, the email has been delivered. The sendmail 
program (and other mailers) are supposed to ignore and blindly pass 
everything to the left of the @ sign. I suspect the problem is not
in the gateway, but in the pre-sending translation being done by the
MS Mail or the PC LAN at chevron. PROFS tends to be good about funky
email addresses, so I suspect you should concentrate your efforts on
the PC LAN side.. (MS Mail is notorious for munging bang path UUCP stuff)

-> 2.  How do I send a message to fred?

       This is part that only the email admin at chevron can tell
you, if there is anyway a user can directly pass things to the smtp
machine without translation, that would be your simplest bet,. You
will lose some of the LAN features you have come to expect (like
auto-uuencoding of binaries, the ability to just "attach" a file and
have it sent with mail, etc etc). This is a highly variable area
and your admin should be able to help you out.

Dump a few of these into the smtp gateway and see what comes up..

jjmhome!k1vr!k1vr at
k1vr%k1vr%jjmhome at
k1vr%k1vr.UUCP at
k1vr!k1vr at
k1vr%k1vr at

DO not use these below even if you are still configured
to expand .UUCP to and flip jjmhome to the front of
the bang path.... Using .UUCP is AOK when the format is
blah!blah!blah.UUCP at as UUNET is configured to handle
.UUCP for direct routing users...  (See the third one above)
If you are confused just pretend this paragraph and the 
two addresses just below do not exist..

k1vr%k1vr at jjmhome.UUCP   <- obsolete, not suggested.. 
k1vr!k1vr at jjmhome.UUCP   <- also obsolete...
-> 3.  How do these character translations occur?

The brackets are 'most likely' occurring in the final step once the
email is being processed by your PC LAN.	

The "character  translations" you speak of ! vs % vs .UUCP vs
are all RFC (Request for comments, Internet white papers if you will)
compliant email standards. I will not expound on them here.
Any internet book should fill you in on all the RFCs with a decent
explanation without forcing you to actually read them, they are long
and technical and you will find them less exciting than a traffic net.

-> Now I notice his reply-to address has a percent sign between the repeats
-> (see above).

This is actually a reformatting for consistent routing, you see the
From: field is generated as the email is travelling out.. with the
explicit route listed.. whereas the Reply-To: field is the
confirmed, fixed-route, that has been "hard-coded" by registration
with UUNET. 

Pretend you recieve a letter from FR5DX (OK OK stop laughing now,
but pretend real hard), with the return address listed as:

		blah blah
		blah, Reunion Island.

But inside the letter Eric, notes for you to send mail to him as:

		blah, blah
		blah, Reunion Island

The former is the From: field, the latter, the Reply-To: field.
Both may work, but the Reply-To: is supposed to work.
In the case of From: it most likely is fine, but the whole reason
the Reply-To: field is set is becuase of some addressing quirk or
inconsistency that the sender wants you to avoid.

Unfortunately, many mailers grab the From: instead of the Reply-To:
when you generate a reply.

-> 4.  Is this another translation or do people's reply-to addresses differ
-> from their usual addresses?

In the UUCP world, it is almost mandatory to have them differ, many
people have different fields, but their mail service converts them
to a uniform standard before the escape their institution. Others
just blindly send all domain mail to a single point which ignores
machine names and just delivers mail based on username.

>From: "Fred Hopengarten" <jjmhome!k1vr!k1vr at>

The above is the raw UUCP from a "REAL" internet site form.
Not only is jjmhome registered with UUNET, but Fred has had k1vr
added to the routing table at UUNET, this would normally shorten the
address for those people with really long UUCP addresses, but since
jjmhome is actually only one hop off the internet the only UUCP steps
in Fred's email are the final ones.  I beleive 
just TCP/IP's to jjmhome but hides the machine from the net.. though 
there may be two UUCP paths transfer -> jjmhome -> k1vr

-> >Reply-To: "Fred Hopengarten" <k1vr%k1vr.UUCP at>

Now here the address is the "reverse" of the UUCP (bang path in
slang) address shown in the From: field. If i were to have an
account on freds shack PC, my address in the registered form would
                aa1aa%k1vr.UUCP at
-> 73, Dave
-> dkmc at

Hopefully that covers it...

73 de Luigi
John L. Luigi Giasi, AA1AA			     jlgiasi at
System Programmer/Administrator
Information Resources Division        
Univ. of Mass. Medical Center				         (508) 856-UNIX
Worcester, MA 01655                                         FAX: (508) 856-2440

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list