| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 11.03.04 09:05l 264 Lines 9456 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2981-
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 05, 7/9
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0FSG<DK0MNL<RW6AT<UA6ADV<ZS6FB<ZS0DLD<ZS6RO<ZS0BEL<
N2BQF<W4JAX<VK4TUB<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040307/1032Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:20536 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2981-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:09:28 -0500
X-Message-Number: 41
Steve Reeiterates his proposal. Bob comments:
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
To: Robert Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
CC: TAPR APRS Special Interest Group <aprssig@lists.tapr.org>
>If you want, I'll implement filtering at findU for any station
>you can tell me is causing QRM and has ignored good faith
>attempts to resolve the issue. That seems like a method of
>implementing your punishment without causing the
>colateral damage of this proposal.
Bob:
No, this will never work. it will only generate ill-will. It never
works in HAM radio to try to cut someone off. That only makes
matters much worse.
All I was after was "feedback" to the users about paths.
Not draconian measures to cut them off.
====== Forwarded Message ======
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
To: Robert Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
CC: TAPR APRS Special Interest Group <aprssig@lists.tapr.org>
>You said he wouldn't even place a warning dialog to help,
>and now you expect him to put in a filter which will alienate
>half of his European users?
You are still totally missunderstanding my proposal. It has
NOTHING to do with filtering. And it has NOTHING to do
with users of long paths in areas where such use is acceptible!
>Look Bob, you are using findU as a very broad, blunt
>club to face a focal problem. For every one person that is a
>problem, you are goping to hurt a dozen that are not problems.
We must be on different wavelengths here...
Absolutelyl not. Nothing hurts anyone. It is simply marking at
the IGate source those packets that are excessive according
to only the rules at that IGate *while* forwarding the packet
onward. No one is denied anything, and no one is clubbed...
>If you really want it, you need to accept my offer to be point
>man on this, use it in very focused strokes aat people that
>are really causing problems, and take the heat for doing
>so yourself.
I would NEVER do that. It NEVER works to deny service or
to BLOCK people. That just never works on HAM radio.
The think we need to do is provide feedback. Those that are
trying to do the right thing will take the lesson, those that
wont are just what we have to live with...
====== Forwarded Message ======
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
ToRobert Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
CC: TAPR APRS Special Interest Group <aprssig@lists.tapr.org>
>Yes, but I don't see anything wrong with a publicly
>posted page that shows those people who have been
>reasonably judged by the locals to be violating local
>norms...
I see everything wrong with it. It violates comon
courtesy. I dont want to see people be made public
specticles on a single page. How cruel.
My proposal simply marks the packet so that when
they view it, then they see the feedback. There is
nothing public about it. No intent to shame... just
give the user feedback. That is all.
>What gives the IGate operator juristiction over the
>RF network?
Hopefully they are (or should be) in tune with the general
requrirments in their area. If they aren't, then I cannot
imagine who is...
>On the other hand, I have suggested a system that allows
>anyone in an area that sees a problem..., to bring it to
>a central authority...
Smacks of Mcarthyism...
>Please Bob, if you want to use findU as a weapon,
>I ask as the developer of findU t>the least restrictive manner possible, and
my proposal
>is far better in this regard than yours.
I have no clue where you get these concepts.
I am only suggesting the use of the FINDU display
as a place where the user can see what the
"local network" thinks of his path. It is Personal,
Not public. It is locally derived, but centrally
available...
Again, my proposal was:
1) Have the IGates mark packets that appear to be
excessive according to LOCAL rules
2) Have FINDU display this marking along with its
data so tht they user gets some feedback about
his use of the system.
There is no club, no weapon, no wall of shame, no
public flogging... just a feedback path. Easily
implemented...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:18:56 -0500
X-Message-Number: 42
Steve wrote:
>>Yes, exactly, but by marking them as abusive at the point of entry
>>according to the LOCAL rules guarantees fairness and prevents
>>long paths in spares area that are necessary from being so marked.
>It requires the cooperation of all the IGate authors.
But that's easier than trying to get 20,000 users to cooperate...
>It places control of the local determination in the hands
>of the IGate operators, who in general are not the best
>people for the job.
If not them, I can think of no others. Presumably the
IGate operators and the DIGI owners work together...
>It makes me responsible for devising a way to handle
>the "marked" packets, to display the problem and
>provide education to offenders, this is not fair.
Ah yes. This is entirely true; You write the code for
FINDU, which is the single clearing house for all
things APRS, hence it is a single point where this
kind of feeback is easily implemented. Yes it puts
the coding burden on you... sorry...:-)
>Much better is my proposal, where... local users...
ould, after.... file a complaint, which ... if judged to be
>valid, woudl result in the blockage of the data from findU.
I dont like that at all. It just makes people mad. Never
works in HAM radio...
I prefer a feedback system. I dont care how or what.
But it shoudl meet these criteria:
1) Not be on RF where it just multiples the problem
and trackers wont see it anyway...
2) is easily implemented
3) Is locally determined
I thought this idea of letting the Igates mark the packets
with the local rules in place in their area and then let
findu just coincidentally display the mark along with
the data was a simple solution, easy to implement
and no one wo
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 15:32:41 -0500
X-Message-Number: 43
On 3/5/04 at 3:09 PM Robert Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu> sent:
>No, this will never work. it will only generate ill-will. It never
>works in HAM radio to try to cut someone off. That only makes
>matters much worse.
>
>All I was after was "feedback" to the users about paths.
>Not draconian measures to cut them off.
I reread all your posts, must be missing where you updated you proposal:
On 3/4/04 at 7:35 PM Robert Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu> sent:
>No, it will display his original packet like this:
>
>LID>APRS,WIDE7-7,RELAY7-7:Packet Truncated due to too-big-path in
>area...
>
As I read this, you want to take this packet
LID>APRS,WIDE7-7,RELAY7-7:=....valid position packet here....
and replace the data portion with an error message, so that the packet gets
sent to the APRS IS as
LID>APRS,WIDE7-7,RELAY7-7:Packet Truncated due to too-big-path in area...
This is denying the use of the APRS IS to this person (as well denying the
data to other user of APRS). This will also generate ill-will, though
rather than at you it will be generated at the IGate operator and even more
at me.
If this is not your proposal then please elaborate more clearly...
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: stir up the path pot!
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:30:57 -0500
X-Message-Number: 44
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 13:44:46 -0500, Robert Bruninga wrote:
>The proposal I saw from you was the hall of shame.
Are you talking to me, as I was the first one to mention this idea on the
SIG? ("wall of shame"... which Curt/Bill had first implemented) or Steve?
Your not attributing anything said to any one person, so it is kind of hard
to follow you. But in any case, as I was the first to mention this during
this thread, I will run with it....
>But that is
>totally repugant because it is trying to fit one rule everywhere.
What I proposed was not a rule at all, it was pure peer pressure. If some
local wants to take the information, and do something with it, that is a
local choice, but it is a choice, not a rule. Here is a example of it, on a
local level:
http://www.jnos.org/nwprs_usage.html
>That just cannot possibly work. If you made another proposal, I must
>have missed it.
No, your just ignoring the "Get off the Pot" thread. And that is actually
fixing the problem. Take some of this energy you are wasting here, and apply
it to encourage folks to >FIX< their RF networks, in which software/firmware
-EXISTS NOW- to cure the problems you are citing. No doubt, education is
important (and the wall of shame can facilitate this by identifying the
offenders), but a direct cure, THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS, is also important.
History is a good guide here, and this whole path debatical keeps coming up
over and over. The tools exist to fix it where it should be fixed. Do things
right.
>Please re-state it so that we are on the same page.
It is the RF RF RF that is the problem. It is not the internet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
