>This strikes me best handled by astute operators rather than by software that
>will rapidly consume the efforts better spent on performance and capabilities.
Hi,
If somebody really needs that kind of automated help, then some companion
program would be a better place for implementation. I
This strikes me best handled by astute operators rather than by software that
will rapidly consume the efforts better spent on performance and capabilities.
George J Molnar
College Park, Maryland
KF2T | FM19ma___
wsjt-devel mailing list
I think agree with you Tom, and as you suggest, creating the possibility to
have a list of calls that is not answered by WSJT-X might be a better
solution. An 'Ignore' list where users can put in calls of known bots and
other callsign ranges other that they don't want to work would
absolutely be a
wholeheartedly agree Tom
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, 13:31 tom, wrote:
> Against it.
>
> There are too many callsigns being issued for numerous reasons -
> anniversaries / covid / 1st etc. Having the software check (and keep
> having to get internal lists updates from other sites) is not really
>
Against it.
There are too many callsigns being issued for numerous reasons - anniversaries
/ covid / 1st etc. Having the software check (and keep having to get internal
lists updates from other sites) is not really practical.
I can’t think of an easy way to detect pirates - non-dxcc you have
Would it be an idea to implement a 'Valid DXCC' checking and 'Pirate
Detection' feature?
The problem is that pirate callsigns like the Dxx from the Donetsk region
in Russia show up as new/unknown DXCC's. It would be fairly easy to
implement a check against the ITU list and the valid DXCC list and
