| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 07.03.04 18:44l 256 Lines 10409 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2975-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 05, 1/9
Path: DB0FHN<DB0THA<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0GOS<DB0EEO<DB0RES<ON0BEL<SP7MGD<7M3TJZ<
LZ3NP<KD7HAH<WA7V<VK7AX<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040307/0941Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:20529 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2975-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
TAPR APRS Special Interest Group Digest for Friday, March 05, 2004.
1. RE: stir up the path pot!
2. Getting off the pot
3. RE: stir up the path pot!
4. Re: Getting off the pot
5. Re: Getting off the pot
6. Spam to email address transmitted on APRS?
7. RE: stir up the path pot!
8. RE: stir up the path pot!
9. APRS beacon messages harvested to send viruses.
10. Re: Spam to email address transmitted on APRS?
11. stir the pot.... and a deep breath for all
12. RE: stir up the path pot!
13. "Cheap" MicroDrive - cannibalise MP3 player
14. Re: Anyone using PK 232 as a digi?
15. Remote Reconfiguration of Digis?
16. Re: Spam to email address transmitted on APRS?
17. Radar Camera mapping app - GB
18. RE: Remote Reconfiguration of Digis?
19. RE: stir up the path pot!
20. Re: OEM GPS modules
21. RE: stir up the path pot!
22. RE: stir up the path pot!
23. Path pot another thought
24. Excessive Path and Power
25. RE: Radar Camera mapping app - GB
26. RE: stir up the path pot!
27. RE: stir up the path pot!
28. RE: stir up the path pot!
29. RE: Radar Camera mapping app - GB
30. Re: Excessive Path and Power
31. RE: stir up the path pot!
32. Re: Path pot another thought
33. Re: Path pot another thought
34. RE: stir up the path pot!
35. RE: stir up the path pot!
36. RE: Radar Camera mapping app - GB
37. RE: stir up the path pot!
38. RE: stir up the path pot!
39. RE: stir up the path pot!
40. Hall of Shame
41. RE: stir up the path pot!
42. RE: stir up the path pot!
43. RE: stir up the path pot!
44. RE: stir up the path pot!
45. RE: stir up the path pot!
46. RE: stir up the path pot! PLEASE START OVER
47. Fix it on the Client Side Was RE: stir up the path pot!
<LYR30523-183132-2004.03.04-19.51.25--kb2scs#optonline.net@lists.tapr.org>
48. APRS Arbitration Proposal
49. TNC-2 and MFJ-1270 performance
50. Re: TNC-2 and MFJ-1270 performance
51. RE: stir up the path pot!
52. THE FEEDBACK PROPOSAL
53. RE: stir up the path pot!
54. Re: THE FEEDBACK PROPOSAL
55. Re: TNC-2 and MFJ-1270 performance
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 23:16:05 -0500
X-Message-Number: 1
>>>"Spider" <spider@rivcom.net> 3/4/04 10:02:10 PM >>>
>No, UI-View is not part of the problem!
>UI-VIEW, nor any software are the GUN!
>There is nothing in UI-View to cause or suggest
>to the user to use anything!
THAT IS THE PROBLEM. From day-1 it was assumed that client software would
HELP the user select a path and would CAUTION him against BAD paths. It
would still let him use a bad path, but it would warn him on each and every
packet sent.
This was fundamental to APRS. Also since Day-1 I have repeatedly asked the
authors to include this guidance in their software. A window that pops up
warning the user when he selects an improper path.
This is EASY To do. 7-7 is BAD. Warn him. But allow him to use it if he
needs it. But then also ANALYZE the channel and change the warning
threshold based on what is going on. APRSdos has done this from day one.
It constantly assesses channel load and what the current path selection is
and FLASHES a warning if it thinks the user is being excessive. THis is
not violating anyone's right to use what ever he wants, but the WARNINGS
are there to help the person thta doesnt realize what he is doing.
That is the fix. If every author would include these warnings based on
need. Then the problem would go away. As it is now, a user can use
WIDE7-7 and get NO FEEDBACK that this is probably not wise...
de WB4APR, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Getting off the pot
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 00:12:53 -0500
X-Message-Number: 2
There has been some discussion on here how wide digipeater owners, as a
group, for whatever reason, are apathetic and unwilling to improve their
local RF networks for the benefit of APRS as a whole. Instead, we are
offered half baked schemes to cripple the internet side of APRS_IS, instead
of directly addressing the problem at hand, which rests solely in the RF
domain.
I for one think this is complete and utter hogwash. More over, history
proves these naysayers wrong. One need on look at the 1997 effort to QSY
APRS digipeaters to see the real motivation digipeater owners have to
improve local networks:
http://www.tapr.org/tapr/pdf/dcc98.aprsqsy.pdf
in this effort, hundreds of digipeaters moved frequency and funds where
collected to make this effort happen, which included purchasing new radios,
crystals and retuning cavities.
There is no reason this couldn't happen again, and if it did, the effort
(and net cost) would be less then the 1997, and the payoff far far greater.
The software exists to do this, and is freely available. Two examples are:
DIGINED:
http://www.qsl.net/digi_ned/
and UIDIGI:
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/msavegna/Presentazione%20UIDIGI%20ENG_file/frame.htm
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/msavegna/uidigi-e.htm
And in both cases, mailing lists already exist to help those wanting to
improve their local network.
I for one will provide the EPROM's for anyone wanting to convert to UIDIGI
(up to 10) and DIGINED just needs a floppy and a old castoff dos PC:
http://www.homepages.hetnet.nl/~pe1dnn/info.txt
--
Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 03/04/2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: "Daron J. Wilson" <daron@wilson.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 21:21:55 -0800
X-Message-Number: 3
>THAT IS THE PROBLEM. From day-1 it was assumed that
>client software would HELP the user select a path and
>would CAUTION him against BAD paths. It would still let
>him use a bad path, but it would warn him on each and
>every packet sent.
I'm not sure I can think of any other mode that does this, and it feels
a little like a slap in the face to treat me like I am incapable of
reading information and learning to use my equipment. I can't agree
that the burden for proper user settings are on the software author, nor
can I agree that Icom is responsible for the proper user settings on my
radio.
>This was fundamental to APRS. Also since Day-1 I have
>repeatedly asked the authors to include this guidance
>in their software. A window that pops up warning the user
>when he selects an improper path.
The mode has evolved and changed, as has the path recommendations, not
to mention the fact that each area is different depending on the
population of digis and Igates. If there were accepted guidlines that
worked everywhere, this wouldn't be an issue. But the fact of the
matter is that those are "USER" settings, because some users need
different settings than others.
>This is EASY To do. 7-7 is BAD. Warn him. But allow him
>to use it if he needs it. But then also ANALYZE the channel
>and change the warning threshold based on what is going
>on. APRSdos has done this from day one. It constantly
>assesses channel load and what the current path selection
>is and FLASHES a warning if it thinks the user is being
>excessive. THis is not violating anyone's right to use
>what ever he wants, but the WARNINGS are there to help
>the person thta doesnt realize what he is doing.
Sorry but I'd toss software that popped up stuff like that every time I
used it. If I need to use 7-7 to get where I need to go, I sure don't
need to fight with my software to make it do it. I cannot honestly
believe that popping up a window for these guys running 7-7 is going to
help when emails, messages and phone calls don't do it.
>That is the fix. If every author would include these warnings
>based on need. Then the problem would go away. As it is
>now, a user can use WIDE7-7 and get NO FEEDBACK that
>this is probably not wise...
Does the precious Kenwood do this? Come on folks, if you want to become
an appliance operator, then use software for you that 'makes all those
decisions for you'. Personally, I have user settings and am very glad
that I have the flexibility to set them as I need for whatever network I
am participating in.
Bob I respect your opinion very much, but I really do not see the logic
supporting the claim that this problem is occurring because the software
authors are not 'warning' the users of excessive paths.
73 N7HQR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Getting off the pot
From: "Matt Werner" <kb0kqa@arrl.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 23:33:25 -0600
X-Message-Number: 4
Jeff -
I think you miss some important points.
The first is site access. I am installing a digi in the morning in a
location that requires a 2 hour drive with the site owner. My only access
to the site is with him, and the less trips I have to make the better. I
plan on this being the only trip for a few years. If it works out well and
is not a pain for him, then in future years we may find ourselves in more of
his sites. Or maybe not. We certainly degrade our chances each time we
call him to tell him we need access.
If the whole APRS community said "we're moving frequencies" then I would
have to follow along or have my equipment beaconing to no one.
If the whole APRS community said "we have some better software" then I will
install it at my next opportunity, but won't make a special trip for it.
It's not necessary to the operation of the digi - it will run fine without
it. You say that the payoff would be much greater - I disagree. Having a
digi on the wrong frequency is worthless. Having a digi with outdated
software that passes too MUCH traffic is far from worthless.
I don't think digi owners are unwilling to upgrade - I think that they will
over time, but they won't rush out to install new software because you, Bob,
Steve, or anyone else says it's the greatest thing in the world.
Personally, I don't think that the correct form of "enforcement" has
presented itself here yet. I don't know what it is, or even if it exists.
I believe that user education should be priority 1. I'm not against
restrictions in the digis (digi_ned already offers this to my
understanding), nor am I against filtering on the internet side of things,
as Bob has suggested.
73 - Matt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
