I guess it isn't shown in that screenshot, but after I worked W1AW/0 (when I was calling W1AW/7), W1AW/0 called CQ, I called W1AW/7 again and W1AW/0 answered me, and I suspect it was the software answering thinking I was calling 0.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 6:23 PM Jon Anhold <j...@anhold.com> wrote: > I'm pretty sure, although I can't know for certain, that W1AW/0's WSJT-X > auto seq answered me after his CQ when I was calling W1AW/7. > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 4:42 PM Reino Talarmo via wsjt-devel < > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > >> Hi Jon, >> >> I don’t see any hash collision in those messages. You should ask what >> W1WW/0 did? Perhaps operator was waiting a “73” from your, but you sent one >> to W1WW/3 and W1WW/0 decided to send you a new report. I don’t know whether >> that station received your message at 205445 as you changed it to W1WW/7 at >> 205448. Could be possible! In any case both station sent to you “RR73”. >> 73, Reino OH3mA >> >> >> >> *From:* Jon Anhold via wsjt-devel [mailto: >> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net] >> *Sent:* 20. tammikuutata 2023 22:56 >> *To:* WSJT software development <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> >> *Cc:* Jon Anhold <j...@anhold.com> >> *Subject:* [wsjt-devel] Hashed callsign collisions? >> >> >> >> I was just on 20m trying to work W1AW/7, and W1AW/0 answered me, twice - >> is this a known issue with longer/hashed callsigns? >> >> >> >> [image: image.png] >> >> >> >> 73 de KM8V Jon >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
