[aprssig] APRS<=>E-mail
Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) ldeffenb at homeside.toMon Jan 5 18:47:13 UTC 2009
- Previous message: [aprssig] APRS<=>E-mail
- Next message: [aprssig] APRS<=>E-mail
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I believe the idea is callsign to callsign e-mail without explicitly knowing or caring if they're on RF or -IS? If the gateway can determine the difference, then it could use two different limits as the two specs are different. If I'm actually USING this to send an e-mail to someone the first time, I'll restrict myself to 67 characters unless I'm SURE they're on APRS-IS in which case I can be more verbose. Why force multiple short messages over -IS if its spec allows longer? Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ Pete Loveall AE5PL Lists wrote: > Good point, Jason. However, I thought the idea is APRS, not APRS-IS, <=> E-mail. According to the spec, an APRS message packet has "max 67 chars" for the message and that should be the upper constraint since this is targeted to RF users IMO. > > 73, > > Pete Loveall AE5PL > pete at ae5pl dot net > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jason KG4WSV >> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:56 AM >> >> gack! Think maybe you should check the APRS-IS design first? I don't >> know the upper limit on packet size, but it would pay to check it out. >> >> Think "APRS messages", not "small email". >> > > _______________________________________________ > aprssig mailing list > aprssig at tapr.org > https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig > >
- Previous message: [aprssig] APRS<=>E-mail
- Next message: [aprssig] APRS<=>E-mail
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the aprssig mailing list
