[aprssig] [OT] Re: CB traffic on APRS-IS
Greg Dolkas
ko6th.greg at gmail.com
Wed Feb 15 13:28:57 EST 2012
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
More information about the aprssig
mailing list