[aprssig] Universal APRS messaging

[Steve Noskowicz]

Brian,

  I'm not able to fully follow this thread, so this may be misplaced.

   RF > Net > RF messages are currnetly a standard part of the APRS-IS.  If the destination station recently beaconed, the (RF > IGate) message is routed appropriately.  The CQ server paradigm relies on this to work.



73, Steve, K9DCI


--- On Sun, 10/19/08, Brian Webster <bwebster at wirelessmapping.com> wrote:

> From: Brian Webster <bwebster at wirelessmapping.com>
> Subject: Re: [aprssig] Universal APRS messaging
> To: "Steve Dimse" <steve at dimse.com>, "TAPR APRS Mailing List" <aprssig at lists.tapr.org>
> Date: Sunday, October 19, 2008, 6:45 PM
> Is there an easy way to at least allow messages back to a
> station via RF if
> that station originated the message from RF? While that is
> not a perfect
> system in that one can not receive messages unless they
> sent one first, it
> is about as good as any other method that exists out there
> today on the
> airwaves (and does not seem to be abused). Maybe put some
> sort of code or
> checksum type of thing (I'm not a programmer) that
> could at least verify
> that message thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You,
> Brian N2KGC
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Dimse [mailto:steve at dimse.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 7:02 PM
> To: bwebster at wirelessmapping.com; TAPR APRS Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [aprssig] Universal APRS messaging
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with WinLink's validation, or
> OpenAPRS, or
> findU's, the original APRS IS scheme, or even the old
> NOS BBS's you
> could telnet to (the validation question was "What is
> the standard
> offset in kHz for a 2 meter repeater?" Enter 600 and
> you were verified
> as a ham.) Weak as that was, it was probably enough. There
> is nothing
> in Part 97 that specifies the strength of the verification.
> 
> The problems are (1), there is no accountability for
> anything on the
> internet side. I can do absolutely anything on the internet
> and not be
> in violation of FCC Part 97. Just like while sitting in my
> home in
> Florida I am not subject to the Seattle Municipal Code,
> there is no
> jurisdiction. Compounded this with (2), any authentication
> scheme,
> OpenAPRS, WinLink, or 600 becomes worthless when you can
> inject
> validated packets into the system at the next step, the
> APRS IS. Since
> the authentication is trivially bypassed, anonymously and
> without
> guilt, that leaves the IGate operators on the hook.
> 
> And, this is just the US. APRS is worldwide, and there are
> dozens of
> different sets of rules that need to be considered!
> 
> I don't have any easy answers, I don't think there
> are any. At the
> very least I want the IGate operators to be aware of the
> risks others
> are exposing them to!
> 
> Steve K4HG
> 
> On Oct 19, 2008, at 6:33 PM, Brian Webster wrote:
> 
> > Is there any way to use the same methods for
> verification that
> > WinLink uses?
> > That would keep the training of the hams a bit
> simplified since it
> > might end
> > up being the same process for both systems. Just a
> thought. While
> > their
> > system is not rock solid perfect, it certainly is a
> reasonable one
> > that does
> > not seem to be abused as of yet. I would also think
> that whatever
> > method
> > gets put in place that a provision to open things up
> in the event of
> > an
> > emergency would be a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com