[aprssig] IS-to-RF alternate proposal - 'marked beacons'

Lee Bengston lee.bengston at gmail.com
Thu Dec 29 21:29:36 EST 2011

Hmm, everyone who either doesn't care or has no clue gets gated to RF
in addition to those that want to.  Of course, a certain percentage of
the clueless would probably want to but not know it.  I don't know -
1200 baud...

Lee - K5DAT

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)
<ldeffenb at homeside.to> wrote:
> Why not the same defaults as supported in the reverse direction?  If you
> don't want your RF packets to go to -IS, then you put NOGATE or RFONLY in
> your path.
> By extension, if you DON'T want your -IS packets to go to RF, you put
> something in your comment, say maybe "NORF" as a blank-delimited word or at
> the end of the beacon comment?  IMHO, there are far fewer -IS users who
> would NOT want to be gated that those that DO want to be gated, so why
> clutter the majority of the comments ON RF NO LESS (where bandwidth is most
> limited and packet contents are NOT allowed to be changed by IGates) with
> additional characters?
> Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32

More information about the aprssig mailing list