[aprssig] Fwd: IGATE message routing bug?

[Jim Alles]

All,

I
​have ​
already started that crusade with one person, and that was me. Probably the
hardest one.
​ But, there is more to it than that - I am just getting started.​

We need to reconcile the fact that putting dots on the map and facilitating
messaging are both valid aspects of the hobby. This will require
cooperation between the two groups. In order to get that to happen with
volunteers, you have to make it easy for them.

There are good practical reasons to not want to transmit to RF, ALL
messages received from APRS-IS. That may mean some received, that may mean
none.
​ That may mean don't receive them.​

And I do truly understand that the tools to shape this are in the IGate
client operators control, not the APRS-IS servers. I am a pragmatist - if I
am asking questions about the servers, it is to try to understand what is
available to use.

I am not about enforcing standards, that leaves no room to grow and learn,
nor does it allow new ideas. I propose organizing what we do have in a
clear, detailed,
​concise manner in a ​
centralized location.
​ Organizing it in a way that what we already have scattered around is
usable to others.​
It is unrealistic to expect anyone to search back through this mail list
archive to find what has been said over and over again. So it seems the
experts are doomed to repeat over and over again, the practical solutions
to issues not covered by the spec.

And then, *major mistakes are made with new software development over and
over again*? That is a symptom of another problem, not the software
developers fault. It absolutely can be avoided. Those guys need the
*​entire* ​
rule
​ book
 up-front to function effectively.
​ ​

Anyone who has responded to me here or on several other forums, thank you.
I want to communicate your ideas, more than mine. Although I have been
lurking since 2009, i am just a another user - who really doesn't like to
talk on the radio, much.

Peace,

Jim A.

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Randy Love <rlove31 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Why don't you start by going around to every every RX only IGate operator
> and convincing them that they it is wrong to not have a two-way IGate? If
> the only Igate in an area is RX only, that definately breaks the system.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20161119/d2411eb6/attachment.html>