On 05/04/2016 18:24, Michael Black wrote: > The bad part of that one though is that it doesn't identify the sending party. > Note that the standard exchange ALWAYS identifies both parties. > > RRR > Mike W9MDB > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Bill Barrett<[email protected]> wrote: >> >Hi George- >> > >> >My experience lately is the usage of : >> > >> >KF2T RRTU73 >> > >> >Which seems to satisfy the Roger part and includes a parting 73. >> >The other side knows who they are talking to so sending your call is >> >redundant. >> > >> >Bill W2PKY >> > Those of you proposing alternative message exchange protocols must consider those with type 1 and type 2 compound call signs. Some of the protocol "rules" are the way they are to accommodate these operators who have to substitute their full compound call with their base call, as do those that have QSOs with them. Any proposed exchange protocol that excludes these operators or those wishing to have QSOs with these operators in not practical.
73 Bill G4WJS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
