<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>What Keith says is the way forwards.<br><br>Dirk has produced an appropriate mechanism for flagging / dealing with unverified spots. It *<b>SHOULD</b>* be responsibility of every sysop to verify those spot(ters) before passing the traffic forwards.<br><br>Yeah – it’s not a banking application that requires high security – but just imagine if Google (other providers are available) decided to allow unverified users to send Emails. (YES! I know there are people there making fake accounts … most like just the same as there are here. But that’s a different issue.<br><br>What I don’t get is the reluctance of (some) SysOps (regardless of software platform they’re running on) to deal with this in a responsible way.<br><br>I’m done now.<br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><br>73 de WR3D<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> Dxspider-support <dxspider-support-bounces@tobit.co.uk> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Keith, G6NHU via Dxspider-support<br><b>Sent:</b> 22 February 2025 08:52<br><b>To:</b> iz2lsc.andrea@gmail.com; The DXSpider Support list <dxspider-support@tobit.co.uk><br><b>Cc:</b> Keith, G6NHU <g6nhu@me.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Dxspider-support] Some information<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div name=messageBodySection><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>This needs to be fixed by the nodes that are not reporting their users, it’s network evolution to maintain security and we need to stop pandering to sysops who won’t update or who are using software that doesn’t properly protect the network.</span><span style='font-size:13.5pt'><br><br></span><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>73 Keith G6NHU</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div name=messageReplySection><p class=MsoNormal>On 22 Feb 2025 at 08:44 +0000, IZ2LSC via Dxspider-support <<a href="mailto:dxspider-support@tobit.co.uk">dxspider-support@tobit.co.uk</a>>, wrote:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 8.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:3.75pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I collected the % of unverified spots received by my node in 24 hrs during a normal "peaceful" working day.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>This is the result.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wSCPqdDAu4wF0_syKZkzArgCDZ-gxBFK/view?usp=sharing">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wSCPqdDAu4wF0_syKZkzArgCDZ-gxBFK/view?usp=sharing</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I can understand this as a countermeasure during an attack.....but not during normal operations.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Just a consideration about the side effects.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>73<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Andrea, iz2lsc<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>--><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 8:07 PM Kin via Dxspider-support <<a href="mailto:dxspider-support@tobit.co.uk">dxspider-support@tobit.co.uk</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal>Hi,<br><br>I have been analysing how a CC Cluster node behaves with pc9x supposedly<br>enabled, to see the suspect filtering.<br><br>The only thing that seems to work correctly is PC92K, which only reports the<br>node itself.<br>The PC92A does not show all user connections and none from a partner.<br>The PC92D does not show all user disconnections.<br>The PC92C is not generated.<br>I don't understand the point of generating some PC92s and not all of them.<br>I think it would be better not to generate any if you can't generate them<br>all. This would avoid ambiguities in the network.<br><br>It is clear that with incomplete information, a CC Cluster will be greatly<br>affected by filtering. But the vast majority (if not all - 1) do not use<br>PC92 like ARC, DXNet and AK1A, all their users' spots will be flagged as<br>suspicious.<br><br>Have a nice weekend.<br><br>Kin EA3CV<br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Dxspider-support mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Dxspider-support@tobit.co.uk" target="_blank">Dxspider-support@tobit.co.uk</a><br><a href="https://mailman.tobit.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dxspider-support" target="_blank">https://mailman.tobit.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dxspider-support</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<br>Dxspider-support mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Dxspider-support@tobit.co.uk">Dxspider-support@tobit.co.uk</a><br><a href="https://mailman.tobit.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dxspider-support">https://mailman.tobit.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dxspider-support</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></body></html>