I don't mean to start a debate or a long discussion. I'd just like to say that I like the "tail-ending" feature/bug. As long as the UDP interface does not allow pressing the Enable Tx button (and I agree it shouldn't) I don't see that it will decrease the number of bots out there. Assuming that, I feel the versatility added is worth it.
Just my opinion as one user. Thomas Reynolds On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:51 AM Bill Somerville <g4...@classdesign.com> wrote: > On 08/01/2021 19:28, Derek Turner via wsjt-devel wrote: > > Dear Joe and Bill > > I have just taken the plunge and installed v2.3 rc3. > > I was very unhappy to find this in the release notes :- > > - Fix a defect that allowed non-CQ messages to be replied to via the > UDP Message Protocol. > > Does this mean that tail-ending is now discouraged ? > > Some of my best QSOs have been achieved by quickly jumping in as soon as a > wanted station has sent RR73 or similar. Is this wrong ? > > My WSTJ companion program which I have spent two years on is now seriously > broken. > > May I politely ask you please to re-evaluate this change. > > 73 de G4SWY Derek +++ > > Derek, > > we have never documented that any other message than a CQ or QRZ call can > be targeted by an external application to initiate a QSO by setting the > standard messages and enabling Tx. Anyone taking advantage of any defect > that does something other than that, rather than reporting such a defect is > always going to be liable to disappointment. > > A station sending 73 or RR73 is not explicitly inviting callers in the > same way that a general call does, and in many cases may be the responder > in a prior QSO, i.e. not the one expecting to use the frequency to make > QSOs. I realize that the "Hold Tx Frequency" option negates that to some > extent in some modes, but it is an option not a requirement. > > Tail-ending is of course available to WSJT-X users, but I for one feel > that the automation we provide for initiating QSOs is being misused if it > attempts to make tail-end QSOs. Tail-ending implicitly means the other > station is doing the initiating if they start a QSO with a tail-ender. As > such an operator using the WSJT-X interface to take part in such a QSO > doesn't seem an onerous requirement. > > Personally if there was a ground swell to extend auto QSO mechanisms my > preference would be to remove the respond to CQ/QRZ facility rather than > add new ad hoc scenarios. QSO robots already are already far too common and > facilitating them further is not in the spirit of Amateur Radio. > > 73 > Bill > G4WJS. > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel >
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
