[Dxspider-support] Some information

[Anthony (N2KI)]

Keith,

Is G6HNU-2 down?




*Regards,Anthony *
*   N2KI*









On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 5:11 AM Keith, G6NHU via Dxspider-support <
dxspider-support at tobit.co.uk> wrote:

> I’m seeing spots coming in via nodes running build 568 that are being
> flagged as bad.
>
> As build 568 now has $DXProt::sendverify set to 2 by default, does that
> mean that the sysops have added an entry to startup that sets this back to
> 0?
>
> If we’re going to take steps to secure the network and the data we pass,
> this sort of thing should be hard-coded!
>
> 73 Keith G6NHU
> On 22 Feb 2025 at 09:01 +0000, Kin via Dxspider-support <
> dxspider-support at tobit.co.uk>, wrote:
>
> Perhaps we should display a list of the nodes and the number of spots that
> have been flagged as suspicious.
>
> It is possible that a sysop could take steps to correct this.
>
>
>
> Kin
>
> EA3CV
>
>
>
> Enviado desde Outlook para Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
>
>
>
> *De:* IZ2LSC <iz2lsc.andrea at gmail.com>
> *Enviado el:* sábado, 22 de febrero de 2025 9:44
> *Para:* The DXSpider Support list <dxspider-support at tobit.co.uk>
> *CC:* Kin <ea3cv at cronux.net>
> *Asunto:* Re: [Dxspider-support] Some information
>
>
>
> I collected the % of unverified spots received by my node in 24 hrs during
> a normal "peaceful" working day.
>
> This is the result.
>
>
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wSCPqdDAu4wF0_syKZkzArgCDZ-gxBFK/view?usp=sharing
>
>
>
> So if we really decide to drop unverified spots (that most of the time are
> real spots, not fake or forged) we are going to drop a lot of spots.
>
> I can understand this as a countermeasure during an attack.....but not
> during normal operations.
>
> Just a consideration about the side effects.
>
>
>
> 73
>
> Andrea, iz2lsc
>
>
>
>
> -->
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 8:07 PM Kin via Dxspider-support <
> dxspider-support at tobit.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been analysing how a CC Cluster node behaves with pc9x supposedly
> enabled, to see the suspect filtering.
>
> The only thing that seems to work correctly is PC92K, which only reports
> the
> node itself.
> The PC92A does not show all user connections and none from a partner.
> The PC92D does not show all user disconnections.
> The PC92C is not generated.
> I don't understand the point of generating some PC92s and not all of them.
> I think it would be better not to generate any if you can't generate them
> all. This would avoid ambiguities in the network.
>
> It is clear that with incomplete information, a CC Cluster will be greatly
> affected by filtering. But the vast majority (if not all - 1) do not use
> PC92 like ARC, DXNet and AK1A, all their users' spots will be flagged as
> suspicious.
>
> Have a nice weekend.
>
> Kin EA3CV
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dxspider-support mailing list
> Dxspider-support at tobit.co.uk
> https://mailman.tobit.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dxspider-support
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dxspider-support mailing list
> Dxspider-support at tobit.co.uk
> https://mailman.tobit.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dxspider-support
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dxspider-support mailing list
> Dxspider-support at tobit.co.uk
> https://mailman.tobit.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dxspider-support
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.tobit.co.uk/pipermail/dxspider-support/attachments/20250222/4f3c152c/attachment-0001.htm>