[App_rpt-users] Quick question on usability

[Chuck Henderson]

I just tried it on 27468, entering *227722, then I ID'd using my hand held
radio on each repeaters input (27468, then 27722), then back on 27468 I did
*80, the cwid of 27468 went out on the air of both repeaters.  These 2
systems do not share any hardware.  Both are running the code downloaded
after the Feb 9, 2012 updates.
Chuck

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Alan Adamson <adamson_alan at hotmail.com>wrote:

> it is, I'll have to see if I can't reproduce it and let you know.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for looking at it Jim!****
>
> Alan****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jim Duuuude [mailto:telesistant at hotmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 05, 2012 10:23 AM
> *To:* app_rpt mailing list; adamson_alan at hotmail.com
> *Subject:* FW: [App_rpt-users] Quick question on usability****
>
> ** **
>
> I have made good attempt at re-creating this problem, to no avail.
>
> I have 2 nodes on a development server. 2007 and 2008. I can do a *22008
> on 2007 and then do a *80 on 2007
> and it only goes out on 2007. Is that the scenario that you were referring
> to?
>
> JIM****
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 13:31:22 -0400
> From: jrorke at cogeco.ca
> CC: app_rpt-users at ohnosec.org
> Subject: Re: [App_rpt-users] Quick question on usability
>
>
> I have also observed that some ids in monitoring mode do get passed on as
> if I was connected in transceive mode.
>
> I seem to remember that this has been like this for some time. I guess
> nobody posted it to the bugs page.
>
> Jon VE3RQ
>
> On 5/29/2012 1:13 PM, Jim Duuuude wrote: ****
>
> No, normally (non-command) initiated ID's are always local.
>
> The problem you are (most likely) seeing is that the command (the *80) in
> this case is getting
> re-distributed to all connected nodes in the normal manner, even though
> the link(s)
> is(are) connected in monitor-only mode.
>
> Darn you for finding a design flaw!! :-)
>
> I will attempt to verify that locally-initiated commands on a
> monitor-connected link
> get distributed. If they do, they wont for long.. :-)
>
> JIM
> **
> ******
> ------------------------------
>
> From: adamson_alan at hotmail.com
> To: App_rpt-users at ohnosec.org
> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 13:06:25 -0400
> Subject: [App_rpt-users] Quick question on usability****
>
> I don't want to be a bad operator at the moment… As I go about checking
> bandwidth and jitter, etc on my setup… I'd like to connect to an active
> Hub, but just in eavesdrop mode.****
>
> But I've noticed that if I connect with the *2 command, that if I
> inadvertently then do a *80, that the ID goes out on the link that was
> connected with the *2.****
>
> Is this true anytime my node decides to ID?****
>
> Alan****
>
>
> _______________________________________________ App_rpt-users mailing list
> App_rpt-users at ohnosec.org
> http://ohnosec.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/app_rpt-users****
>
>
> **
> ******
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> App_rpt-users mailing list****
>
> App_rpt-users at ohnosec.org****
>
> http://ohnosec.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/app_rpt-users****
>
>
> _______________________________________________ App_rpt-users mailing list
> App_rpt-users at ohnosec.org
> http://ohnosec.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/app_rpt-users****
>
> _______________________________________________
> App_rpt-users mailing list
> App_rpt-users at ohnosec.org
> http://ohnosec.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/app_rpt-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.keekles.org/pipermail/app_rpt-users/attachments/20120605/a87e8c57/attachment.html>