[aprssig] New APRSMail (was: APRS<=>E-mail)
Ron Tonneson ron.tonneson at gmail.comWed Jan 14 03:57:47 UTC 2009
- Previous message: [aprssig] New APRSMail (was: APRS<=>E-mail)
- Next message: [aprssig] New APRSMail (was: APRS<=>E-mail)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
OK, thanks. Ron - K0QVF Gregory A. Carter wrote: > Hi Ron, > > I believe it failed because you tried to send a message to yourself... > the system doesn't allow self messages to prevent it from acking to > itself. I'll have to work on that... if you send a message to someone > else it should work just fine. I've added an error message for self > attempts for now to let people know. > > Greg > > NV6G > OpenAPRS.Net > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Ron Tonneson <ron.tonneson at gmail.com > <mailto:ron.tonneson at gmail.com>> wrote: > > The aprsmail.org <http://aprsmail.org> works fine with Firefox 3.0.5 > > I tried to send myself a message but so far it has not shown up on > my UI-View system. I see it in the inbox on > aprsmail.org <http://aprsmail.org>. Wonder if I did it wrong? > > Ron - K0QVF > > Gregory A. Carter wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > For those of you who have followed this thread or are interested > in an > > APRS->Email gateway I've created a new system that supports it. If > > you'd like more information, point your web browser at > www.aprsmail.org <http://www.aprsmail.org> > > <http://www.aprsmail.org> and check out the front page, it gives > details > > of how to use the system, filtering, account access and the two > ways of > > accessing the gateway. > > > > The system is still being refined a bit and may still have some > > unforseen bugs but it appears to work. IE6 users may have some > > formatting or display issues but the page should still be > functional and > > unerstandable for use. > > > > 73, > > > > Greg > > > > NV6G > > OpenAPRS.Net > > > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Gregory A. Carter > <gcarter at openaprs.net <mailto:gcarter at openaprs.net> > > <mailto:gcarter at openaprs.net <mailto:gcarter at openaprs.net>>> wrote: > > > > This is one of those moments when I smack myself in the > forehead and > > say, "I should have thought of that." > > > > So with regard to security to prevent spam, my thoughts were to > > allow the <callsign>@aprsmail.org <http://aprsmail.org> > <http://aprsmail.org> user to be > > able to specify a generic password/code to be given in the > subject > > line when a person wants to email->aprs them. This would > imply that > > the remote party wishing to contact would have to know the > password > > in order to communicate. > > > > I suppose this feature could be optional so the more daring can > > leave the door open for anyone to email them assuming they > have the > > correct email format. For now, my thoughts are to force a > text or > > html (NO MIME) email that will have the HTML auto stripped > (since > > some clients send in html by default this would make life > easier for > > the less advanced user) if present which are forced to use a > format > > like the following for the system to parse and know the > message is > > not spam. > > > > --- Body of Message --- > > > > SR:<FROM CALLSIGN>|MS:<MESSAGE> > > > > --- End of Message --- > > > > For those of you who have seen OpenAPRS's DCC interface this > is very > > similar to the way DCC parses lines. The pipe (|) character and > > backslash (\) characters would have to be escaped if to be > > interpreted literally. > > > > This format would also leave tons of room for expansion if > needed in > > the future. When parsing this format spaces before and > after the > > line would be removed and spaces would be compressed in > <MESSAGE>. > > > > <MESSAGE> would be restricted to 67 characters or less. > > <FROM CALLSIGN> would be restricted to a standard callsign > format 10 > > characters or less, no spaces and only letters numbers or -. > > > > This format would be unmistakable compared to spam or any other > > accidental email. <FROM CALLSIGN> would then be used as the > source > > in the packet and both the callsign and message would be > checked for > > vulgarity. > > > > Eventually the system would be expanded to read and accept MIME > > multipart messages and scan for the "text" body of the message. > > > > So as an example, if I wanted to send a message to N6NAR from me > > (NV6G) the email would look like this. > > > > ***BEGIN*** > > TO: n6nar at aprsmail.org <mailto:n6nar at aprsmail.org> > <mailto:n6nar at aprsmail.org <mailto:n6nar at aprsmail.org>> > > FROM: gcarter at openaprs.net <mailto:gcarter at openaprs.net> > <mailto:gcarter at openaprs.net <mailto:gcarter at openaprs.net>> > > SUBJECT: <optional password> > > --- > > > > SR:NV6G|MS:Hello, how are you today? > > ***END*** > > > > SR: and MS: could be specified in any order the parser won't > care. > > > > Thoughts, opinions? > > > > Greg > > > > NV6G > > OpenAPRS.Net > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) > > <ldeffenb at homeside.to <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to> > <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to>>> wrote: > > > > Actually, I would rely on the TCPIP as the path rather than > > trying to > > play catchup or guesswork on what client application > they are > > using. If > > their path is ONLY TCPIP* (excluding the qXX code and gate), > > then assume > > APRS-IS. Otherwise, it is RF-limited. > > > > Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ > > > > Gregory A. Carter wrote: > > > Thanks for looking that up Lynn... > > > > > > So it may be possible to check to see if the user is > actually > > online > > > at the time with messaging by looking at the destination > > address they > > > have set which would hopefully reveal what client > they are > > using. Of > > > course this would fail in the case of MIC_E packets > but would > > > generally be useful for others. If we couldn't > detect what > > client > > > they were using then we're default to the RF limit. > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > NV6G > > > OpenAPRS.Net > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) > > > <ldeffenb at homeside.to <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to> > <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to>> > > <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to > <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to> <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to > <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to>>>> wrote: > > > > > > From the APRS101 spec approved 29 August 2000 > under the > > NTS Radiogram > > > section: > > > > > > Each line may be up 67 characters long, including the > > 3-character NTS > > > format identifier. Lines in excess of 67 > characters will > > be truncated. > > > > > > Also from the Messages, Bulletins, and > Announcements section: > > > > > > The message text may be up to 67 characters long, > and may > > contain any > > > printable ASCII characters except |, ~ or {. > > > > > > From the APRS-IS Specification: > > > > > > All "packets" sent to APRS-IS must be in the TNC2 > format > > > terminated by a > > > carriage return, line feed sequence. No line may > exceed > > 512 bytes > > > including the CR/LF sequence. > > > > > > And that 512 bytes INCLUDES the TNC2 monitor > format "header" > > > information > > > (prior to the colon) of SENDER>DEST,PATH:rest of > packet. > > If I > > > remember > > > correctly, the AX.25 path can handle up to 8 hops > and then an > > > IGate may > > > add a qXX and it's own callsign, and a > callsign-ssid is 9 > > characters, > > > plus the commas means that the header maxes out > at 120 bytes > > > (sender+dest+8*path+qXX+IGate) (actually 114 if > we assume > > a 3, not 9, > > > character qXX code). That would leave a maximum > of 398 > > payload > > > characters per the APRS-IS spec. Oh, but we have to > > allow for the 9 > > > character message destination and an additional colon > > separator > > > plus the > > > ack at the end (assuming the e-mail forwarder is > doing the > > > decaying send > > > until ack routine). That'd leave us with 382 (10 for > > dest & colon > > > and 6 > > > for {msgno per APRS spec). > > > > > > Seems like 382 is the upper limit of message body for > > TCP/APRS-IS > > > packets and 67 is the defined spec limit for APRS > over RF > > messages. > > > > > > Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Thankful for Jason's > suggestion to > > check the > > > specs... > > > > > > Jason KG4WSV wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Lynn W. > Deffenbaugh (Mr) > > > > <ldeffenb at homeside.to > <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to> <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to > <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to>> > > <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to > <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to> <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to > <mailto:ldeffenb at homeside.to>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > >> To throw out numbers, I'd say 1K for non-RF users > > > >> > > > > > > > > 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". > > > > > > > > -Jason > > > > kg4wsv > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > aprssig mailing list > > > > aprssig at tapr.org <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org> > <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org>> > > <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org> > <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org>>> > > > > > https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > aprssig mailing list > > > aprssig at tapr.org <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org> > <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org>> > > <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org> > <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org>>> > > > https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > aprssig mailing list > > > aprssig at tapr.org <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org> > <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org>> > > > https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > aprssig mailing list > > aprssig at tapr.org <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org> > <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org>> > > https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > aprssig mailing list > > aprssig at tapr.org <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org> > > https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig > > _______________________________________________ > aprssig mailing list > aprssig at tapr.org <mailto:aprssig at tapr.org> > https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > aprssig mailing list > aprssig at tapr.org > https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig >
- Previous message: [aprssig] New APRSMail (was: APRS<=>E-mail)
- Next message: [aprssig] New APRSMail (was: APRS<=>E-mail)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the aprssig mailing list