[aprssig] Danger Will Robinson!
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
On Jul 22, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) wrote:
> 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:
>>> 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
>>> 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?
>>>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>> aprssig mailing list
>>> aprssig at tapr.org
>> aprssig mailing list
>> aprssig at tapr.org
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
More information about the aprssig