[Dxspider-support] The SSID

[Lee Sawkins]

I agree with Eric 100%.

Lee


Eric Carling wrote:
> 
> Might it be better to keep the way SSIDs are handled the way it is
> now but allow calls like SM7GVF/7 to be valid?
> 
> Although currently not permitted, I see no reason to stop that format
> of callsign from logging in. Moreover, the /7 (or whatever)
> identifier says a lot more than the -7 ssid which makes no sense as a
> geographical identifier.
> 
> Or is there something in packet cluster protocol that prevents calls
> containing a '/' ?
> 
> -------Original Message-------
> 
> From: Kjell Jarl
> Date: 03/24/05 16:13:47
> To: The DXSpider Support list
> Subject: Re: [Dxspider-support] The SSID
> 
> Hi Dirk,
> I agree on the result of set/badspotter.
> 
> However, ages ago, when I ran AK1A and DXNet, the SSID was presented
> as
> the source of the spotter, DXNet could be configured to not to.
> Currently I do not know about DXNet.
> 
> I still want to be another station when using another SSID. I
> understand
> it involves a major rework of your code.
> 
> The advantage is twofold:
> - Other users know I am not at home, the grid presented alongside my
> spot is with the current location
> - Other users can make a talk to the right call/SSID as it is
> presented
> 
> The latter requires some knowledge from the users though.
> 
> Could a workaround be to distribute all talk messages to all
> (non-dxnode) SSID calls connected? So If some one make a "talk sm7gvf
> hi
> there" it will be delivered to sm7gvf-7 as well? I think you have
> mentioned that earlier.
> 
> Could you tell more maybe about the future protocol for us?
> 
> May I also add, that I appreciate all the work you have done with
> this
> code, it is an excellent program, works very nicely. We are just
> fiddling on details here. You have very much contributed to the
> community of radio amateurs. Thank you!
> 
> 73
> Kjell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dirk Koopman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 07:52 +0100, Kjell Jarl wrote:
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>Why would the SSID be not important? Or rather what you said Dirk?
> >>
> >
> >
> > I didn't say that it is not important.
> >
> >
> >>If I go to another (secondary perhaps) QTH and use SM7GVF-7, I
> would
> >>like to be treated as another user with other grid locators and so
> on.
> >>
> >
> >
> > And that is normally what happens (and is how I intend it),
> although
> > other people want to be treated more the same.
> >
> >
> >>Now not even spots I put out is with my SSID included. People hav
> no
> >>idea I am at the other QTH.
> >
> >
> > Spots have never been shown with SSID (except by accident).
> >
> >
> >>I think this is in error.
> >
> >
> > Well, this is a very difficult area. The issue is essentially one
> of
> > "how much of the 'personality' of G1TLH do I transfer to G1TLH-4".
> There
> > seem to be to, more or less, equal and opposite views:-
> >
> > 1. Treat SSIDs as the same person, mostly.
> > 2. Treat SSIDs as different things that share the same callsign and
> > name, but not much else, mostly.
> >
> > This debate has happened many times in the past and what you have
> now is
> > my interpretation of that. There are some issues, the most
> important of
> > which is: you cannot have exactly the same callsign connect more
> than
> > once to the same node. This is a fundamental limitation of the
> program.
> >
> > However in the original context of "set/badspotter", the view (when
> > these things brew up) is that sysops don't want to and actually
> can't
> > stop all SSID variations of a station that they want to ignore in
> this
> > way.
> >
> > It does not matter to them whether you are home or at your second
> qth:
> > if they want to set/badspot *you*, they want to do it wherever you
> > are :-)
> >
> > 73 Dirk
> >