[Dxspider-support] Some information

[Keith, G6NHU]

Nope, it’s up.

73 Keith G6NHU
On 22 Feb 2025 at 13:32 +0000, Anthony (N2KI) via Dxspider-support <dxspider-support at tobit.co.uk>, wrote:
> 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
> > >
> > > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20250222/1365ba1d/attachment.htm>