[aprssig] Danger Will Robinson!

[Steve Dimse]

OK, if you want to do that, especially in light of the problems I see  
with the bandwidth, I'll be filtering this from findU. There is simply  
too much potential for confusion and other issues inherent in sending  
a packet from 2000 different callsigns every 10 minutes.

Just to be clear, I am withdrawing any support that may have been  
implied in my previous discussion. I now consider this to be a Very  
Bad Thing. I started to lean that way when I saw the amount of data,  
but the fact that it is sent with what are misleading origin calls  
makes it an easier decision. I urge others concerned about the future  
of APRS to look carefully at this before it gets started and  
impossible to turn off!

Steve K4HG

On Jul 22, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) wrote:

> Steve,
>
> There was discussion both ways, some people believe it should be  
> both ways.  There is no technical nor legal reason (on APRS-IS) for  
> one vs the other, although some mistakenly believed these objects  
> would somehow conflict with the real station's position.
>
> My final decision was based on the following factors:
>
> 1) There's no interference for using the station's callsign
> 2) The ToCall of APELNK will be google-able and define where the  
> objects are coming from
> 3) My call will be in the path of the raw packets on the Internet
> 4) All of the information in the object is controlled by the node's  
> owner
> 5) I'm only reformatting data, not authoring anything new
> 6) All information is already available to the public (EchoLink  
> status)
>
> Mike (kb8zgl) put it best at 10:39 today:
>
> "It would seem odd to me to see my KB8ZGL-R EL object come from  
> someone else's callsign. That would bother me more than seeing it  
> come from my own callsign even though I didn't put it out there."
>
> I agree with him wholeheartedly.  I really wouldn't want to see some  
> other callsign "owning" my EchoLink Nodes object.  I might not like  
> seeing someone else injecting the object, but at least the object  
> acknowledges my "ownership".
>
> Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ
>
> Steve Dimse wrote:
>> Maybe I missed something. Didn't everyone agree you should not be  
>> sending data with other hams callsigns as the origin?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) wrote:
>>
>>> Curt,
>>>
>>> Done.  Check out the current proposed objects at http://ldeffenb.dnsalias.net/EchoLink.txt 
>>> .  It only uses PHG if the frequency doesn't adhere to the valid  
>>> ones listed in http://aprs.org/info/freqspec.txt, including the  
>>> GHz ranges near the bottom of that page.  Any "invalid" frequency  
>>> will still be included in the status text, but only in its owner- 
>>> specified format, not in a normalized FREQ object.
>>>
>>> Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aprssig mailing list
>> 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
>