[aprssig] [OT] Re: CB traffic on APRS-IS

[Greg Dolkas]

Couldn't we take the approach that only packets with valid call signs in them get processed?  Other packets may be legal, due to local context, but that doesn't mean we have to handle them.  There's a higher bar to cross in using a gateway.

Just a thought,

Greg  KO6TH

Sent from my trusty HP iPAQ.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)" <ldeffenb at homeside.to>
To: "TAPR APRS Mailing List" <aprssig at tapr.org>
Sent: 2/15/12 4:57 AM
Subject: Re: [aprssig] [OT] Re:  CB traffic on APRS-IS

On 2/15/2012 7:40 AM, Dave wrote:
> Anwyay, re the above snippet.   If somewhere in the packet, even in the
> payload, there is a Ham call that somehow identifies the originator, it's
> legal.
>

And even worse, not every packet (at least here in the US) needs to have 
that ID.  If you beacon a comment or a status report at least once every 
10 minutes, you're legal (on the air), so any soft of filtering (that's 
the bush we're all beating around, right?) would have to be stateful and 
remember which stations had a "legal" identification within the past "N" 
minutes where "legal" and "N" are locale-specific and therefore nigh on 
impossible to do on the APRS-IS backbone IMHO.

Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32

PS.  Now, to figure out how to implement locale-specific filters to 
mitigate the risk to bi-directional IGate operators for third-party 
message transmissions and/or APRS-IS to RF IGate rules...  Especially 
when the first packet that said IGate might see is a message from a 
distant source destined for a recently local station...  And even worse, 
when the message sender is using a tactical station ID and relying on 
comments or status reports to provide legal identification...




_______________________________________________
aprssig mailing list
aprssig at tapr.org
https://www.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig