[aprssig] Danger Will Robinson!

Steve Dimse steve at dimse.com
Wed Jul 22 16:18:28 CDT 2009

Injection with other hams callsigns in the origin forces me to filter  
them. If that were corrected and the rate made 1 hour with the packets  
evenly distributed (one every other second), I'd try it without the  
filtering to see what happened. As for what gets filtered, I'm not  
going to implement a list of 2057 callsigns to check against, beside  
which I would then be filtering people who ARE legitimately on APRS.  
Yet another argument for putting the correct originating station in  
the packet!

Steve K4HG

On Jul 22, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) wrote:

> Steve,
> I'm only hoping to offer a service that was requested.  I also  
> understand the ramifications of it.  I'd really like this  
> information to be visible from the various -IS viewing sites like  
> findu.com, aprs.fi, and any others that I don't know of.  That's why  
> I was asking about the beaconing rate.  I understand that 10 minutes  
> provides good local visibility, but if we want to do that, then just  
> get the IGate operators to set up their own objects.
> However, right now, there's no easy way for them to even SEE what's  
> around them to know what objects they might even want to consider.
> What would your thoughts be of a 1 hour update rate, with the data  
> smoothed over 15 minutes for delivery?  That can at least make the  
> objects visible, while possibly not getting an update out to a  
> mobile operator driving through a coverage area.
> Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ
> PS.  And Steve, it is is your right to filter however you see fit  
> for your use.  However, as we go with a consensus on one issue,  
> please don't let that decision reflect on me personally nor any  
> other APRS activities in which I may be engaged.
> PPS.  Remember, it would be a fairly simple thing for the EchoLink  
> author to simply have their software connect to the APRS-IS and  
> inject their own packets under their own callsigns at their own  
> rates and you'd still have 2,000 new objects arriving at some  
> regular interval.
> Steve Dimse wrote:
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

More information about the aprssig mailing list