|
Re: Webmail Clients
Mark L Friedlander <marklfriedlander@...>
"However, we also have customers who need to be able to take the radio out of the box, set a few configuration settings and operate. "
Did somebody call my name? Definitely build something for us appliance operators. Mark KV4I
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:17 PM, John D. Hays <john@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
basil@...
Just to be clear:
The hardware interface will be a posix network interface. It can & has been bolted on to the bottom of AX.25 & TCP/IP. What ever protocol you want to use needs to talk to a network interface. paclink-unix, used for Winlink support, uses a mail MTA, postfix, & movemail. There will be a minimal mail server (Dovecot) to allow support for pop3/imap clients. I have used our mail setup with mutt, thunderbird, neomail, claws-mail & K-9 mail on my Android tablet. Not sure where the 'lack of focus' thing is coming from but let me just say you are wrong. If you want to develop something and are familiar with BSD or posix sockets you will be fine. We currently have the interface running on a browser using websockets talking to a node.js server in the cloud which talks to a daemon on the radio platform at my house. The components can be split apart & run on different machines or all together on the same udr platform. There are many different ideas about how this box will be used. Since our group is heavily invested in this project you might figure out that it will do what we have the most fun doing. The software will be all open sourced so that you can make it do what you have the most fun doing. /Basil N7NIX
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
bhhoyer@...
Understand that we are the servant of two masters. Those of you that just want a modem on a network, and appliance operators who need a complete turn-key solution.
You can rest assured that no resources have been pulled off the RF/Hardware team to play with webmail :) Thanks for the feedback Bryan K7UDR
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
"John D. Hays" <john@...>
Michael, Different team members work on different aspects of the radio. All of the things you list are being worked on by the engineers who have that responsibility.
We have more than one type of customer. Many of our early adopters are technologists and are focused on creating systems that work for their specific applications. Some will port or write software that make the UDRX even more powerful and flexible. However, we also have customers who need to be able to take the radio out of the box, set a few configuration settings and operate.
What Bryan and I are working on for these 'plug and play' uses, is a defined set of applications we can pre-load and provide a simple configuration tool or directions. Almost all of these applications take no additional engineering or development work; e.g. a mail client, mail transfer agent, NNTP, GPSD, etc. We simply need to identify, test, and provide configuration tools or guidance. It takes nothing away from the engineering work to deliver the radio. (The old analogy applies, "You can't deliver a baby in 1 month by using 9 mothers")
The critical path engineering is being addressed and we are down to fine tuning on the RF deck and modem chain. Getting the radio done is first priority. John D. Hays K7VE PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223   
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Michael E Fox - N6MEF <n6mef@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
"Michael E Fox - N6MEF" <n6mef@...>
Exactly.
The focus seems to continue to wander. We can make mail servers and clients on some other machine at any time.
What we don’t have is the radio bridge functionality that the UDR promises (but still hasn’t delivered). Can we stay focused on delivering that? Choice of modulation schemes, FEC, management and control (simple, intuitive management screens; snmp; logging, etc.)
Michael N6MEF
From: UniversalDigitalRadio@... [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] On Behalf Of Tom Hayward
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:22 AM To: UniversalDigitalRadio@... Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Webmail Clients
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Bryan Hoyer <bhhoyer@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
Bryan Hoyer <bhhoyer@...>
Yes, IQ via UDP will be supported for "soft modem" development.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Mar 12, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Tom Hayward <esarfl@...> wrote: On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:35 AM, <bhhoyer@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@...>
when you say "linked via ethernet" I assume you mean SSH?IP - SSH maybe for local (non RF - after all it's HAM Radio) admin but it won't be needed. Plug in the box. It does a DHCP query on the network to get an address and it's on the air. and by "modem" you mean KISS?For legacy packet operation - the RF side will show simply as an interface on the Linux AX25 stack. All of the applications and even TCP/IP come from there. You should never have to deal with KISS. There is a NET2KISS shim from the AX25 stack that provides a virtual KISS port to applications that need it. Bill, WA7NWP
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
Tom Hayward <esarfl@...>
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:35 AM, <bhhoyer@...> wrote:
I was thinking more like TCP/IP. Maybe Linux AX25 for the 9600 stuff, though I'm not a huge fan of AX25. SSH is a layer 7 protocol; a modem should convert between layer 1 and layer 2. I already have TNCs that can convert 9600 AX25 to KISS. I don't need another. I'm hoping for a software-defined modem where I can experiment with protocols that use FEC and speeds greater than 9600 bps. Eventually I'd like to add this protocol support into the modem, but for now I would be happy sending IQ data to and from the modem via UDP. Tom KD7LXL
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
bhhoyer@...
when you say "linked via ethernet" I assume you mean SSH?
and by "modem" you mean KISS?
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@...>
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Bryan Hoyer <bhhoyer@...> wrote:
When using email over RF either peer to peer or winlink a mail client is required.Interesting that you mention Markdown - it appears to be showing up more.. * AuthenticationDidn't you mean to say NNTP? That's how the cool BBS's (like JNOS and BPQ) deal with Bulletins. http://squirrelmail.org/plugin_view.php?id=112 SquirrelMail and Horde look interesting.Been using SquirrelMail for many years and will be going back to it as I get away from G-stuff. The WL2K folks have an Webmail on Windows setup but I can't find it right now in my non-notes... To follow on with what Tom said - get the hardware out and working - we'll do the apps... Bill, WA7NWP
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
Mark L Friedlander <marklfriedlander@...>
I'm running SquirrelMail on my Raspberry Pi with Raspian Wheezy, Postfix and Paclink-Unix. They all seem to play nicely together. Due to the inclusion of SAMBA on my Pi, web clients on my network can easily find the SquirrelMail interface when users type hostname\squirrelmail. Mark KV4I
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Bryan Hoyer <bhhoyer@...> wrote: When using email over RF either peer to peer or winlink a mail client is required.
|
|
|
|
Re: Webmail Clients
Tom Hayward <esarfl@...>
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Bryan Hoyer <bhhoyer@...> wrote:
When using email over RF either peer to peer or winlink a mail client is required.... What are your thoughts on Webmail Clients? Debian packages strongly preferred.I just want a modem. I can handle application support myself, likely on another system linked via Ethernet. Tom KD7LXL
|
|
|
|
Webmail Clients
Bryan Hoyer <bhhoyer@...>
When using email over RF either peer to peer or winlink a mail client is required.
We support POP3 and IMAP so you may use your favorite standard email client such as Outlook, AppleMail or Thunderbird. In order to have a configuration free app we also have a webmail client pre-installed on the UDR. Currently we're using Neomail and it is perfectly satisfactory. However it is no longer actively supported. There are some advanced features that I believe will be important in the future such as: * Markdown Support * Authentication * BBS Style Bulletins SquirrelMail and Horde look interesting. What are your thoughts on Webmail Clients? Debian packages strongly preferred. Cheers, Bryan K7UDR
|
|
|
|
Re: Question on TX/RX antenna ports
Jim Kusznir <jkusznir@...>
Sorry, my diagram did not indicate that I do also have a band pass filter on the output of the isolator before the RF goes back to the radio. In my current setup, I have 2 3-port TX/RX isolators going through a TX/RX "spur reducer" (rare item, couldn't find any details, not adjustable), and then into a standard Motorola square UHF cavity configured for band pass, before returning to the radio and going to the internal TX/RX switch.
--Jim
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:43 PM, John Lloyd <lloyd@...> wrote: Hi Jim,
|
|
|
|
Re: Question on TX/RX antenna ports [1 Attachment]
John Lloyd <lloyd@...>
Hi Jim,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Remember that you should also install a low pass filter or band pass cavity after the isolator to keep it off the antenna for IM reasons. John Lloyd, K7JL Jim Kusznir wrote:
Ack, this message got mis-filed by my mail client, sorry for the delay!
|
|
|
|
Re: Question on TX/RX antenna ports
Jim Kusznir <jkusznir@...>
Ack, this message got mis-filed by my mail client, sorry for the delay! Here's my attempt at a block diagram...I'm pretty poor at diagramming... This is what my current Mitrek on the hill is configured as. Simple intercept of the TX line to the TX/RX switch. It breaks that out externally for isolator support, then brings it back into the box and uses the stock TX/RX relay for switching.
For my purposes, it would be great if I could get a "standard" UDR, except there are two additional connectors on it (SMA is fine :) ), that breaks out the TX path (and if desired, the radio can ship with a jumper across these two ports such that it functions identically to a stock UDR). For those users who want to use seperate TX and RX antennas, I think they could just use the TX out and not send it back into the radio for their TX output, and use the "normal" antenna port for RX. That way the receiver is still protected against too much RF on transmit.
Anyway, thanks for your response! My Mitrek on the hill isn't doing so well now, so I'm leaning more and more toward replacing it with a UDR as soon as I can get one (originally I was just going to get one for personal use).
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:31 PM, <bhhoyer@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Question on TX/RX antenna ports
bhhoyer@...
Jim, I reviewed our setup and it requires an external switch to protect the receive port and yes the Tx/Rx signal is available to drive it. Please send me a block diagram of the application. I may be able to make a slight change and use the internal switch. Bryan
|
|
|
|
Re: Question on TX/RX antenna ports
Keith Goobie <keith@...>
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:46 PM, Bryan Hoyer <bhhoyer@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Question on TX/RX antenna ports
Bryan Hoyer <bhhoyer@...>
Jim,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I'm just wrapping up some time critical engineering work. First of next week, I'll publish the block diagram of our antenna switch with both options and then I can address your question better. Thanks, Bryan
On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Jim Kusznir <jkusznir@...> wrote: Hi all: I have a quick question on the implementation of the separate TX and RX ports on the UDRX: I realize its half-duplex, so will there still be T/R switching internally to protect against tx rf coming back on the rx port? My application is for a mountain application where a circulator is required on the tx output. Typically for these radios, I mod them to intercept the TX path prior to the T/R switch and break them out to the circulator/bandpass cavity, then back in. I then use the T/R switch and its single antenna connector to connect to the input antenna (which is used both for RX and TX). So, in the case of the UDR with separate TX/RX ports, would I be able to simply split the incoming antenna and run it into the RX port directly, and take the other side and run it through the circulator/band pass filter? Or will there be an output to drive an external T/R switch? How would you recommend me using it in that configuration? Thanks! --Jim
|
|
|
|
Question on TX/RX antenna ports
Jim Kusznir <jkusznir@...>
Hi all: I have a quick question on the implementation of the separate TX and RX ports on the UDRX: I realize its half-duplex, so will there still be T/R switching internally to protect against tx rf coming back on the rx port?
My application is for a mountain application where a circulator is required on the tx output. Typically for these radios, I mod them to intercept the TX path prior to the T/R switch and break them out to the circulator/bandpass cavity, then back in. I then use the T/R switch and its single antenna connector to connect to the input antenna (which is used both for RX and TX).
So, in the case of the UDR with separate TX/RX ports, would I be able to simply split the incoming antenna and run it into the RX port directly, and take the other side and run it through the circulator/band pass filter? Or will there be an output to drive an external T/R switch? How would you recommend me using it in that configuration?
Thanks! --Jim
|
|
|
