<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">To be reliable on</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">demand, APRS must have consistent performance expectations for</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">users and not be at the whim of each digi owner to be changing</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">the intent of the sender,</div></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>But what if the intent of the sender isn't compatible with the new paradigm?</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>I'm one of those draconian node ops who takes paths greater then WIDE3-3 and rewrites them so they fit the new paradigm.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>I also take the old RELAY and TRACE paths and convert them into something more appropriate.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Anything else that conforms is left alone.</div><div><br></div><div>I'd rather give somebody who's not quite figured out the new paradigm out yet a shot at getting into the network rather then just dropping their packets.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Digi_Ned is great for modifying non-compliant paths.</div><div><br><div> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Geneva" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Geneva">--</font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><font face="Geneva" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Geneva">Steve <steve.jones at rogers.com></font></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Geneva; min-height: 16.0px"><br></p> <br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div><br></div></body></html>