On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 01:03 PM, Bill Somerville wrote:
If your QSO partner elects to send an RR73 message in reply to your R+report message then they should not expect any reply.Bill, that is a subtlety that clearly escapes many thousands of users.
Once you explicitly stated above that no reply should be expected, and I re-read the manual, I understood.
But before that I didn't.
The manual simply states:
Not knowing the implications of repetition and figuring that not requiring repetition on 90+% of QSOs constituted "reasonably confident" I set mine to RR73 without understanding the full implications.
Perhaps that warning could be more forceful and the implications better explained?
This is creating unnecessary bandwidth consumption in 3 different ways:
1) They keep sending RR73
2) When they do, I need to send an extra 73 to ensure they receive one
3) Some don't confirm the QSO and so I need to periodically reconcile my log with LoTW and QRZ to remove unconfirmed QSOs (so they no longer show up as worked in WSJT-X), but some of those unconfirmed are intentional and so I end up responding to their CQ repeatedly because their non-WSJT-X software has me recorded as worked and they ignore the calls.
Any reason a double-click on their last RR773 couldn't just position for sending another 73?
Regardless, thanks for your work on WSJT-X.
All the alternatives are far more buggy.