locked Re: QSO sequence #QSO_practices




You can choose to ignore them, by disabling TX before you have a chance to reply, or double-clicking on the call you do want to answer. The choice is all yours.


73 Phil GM3ZZA


Sent from Mail for Windows


From: chas cartmel
Sent: 01 October 2021 16:34
To: main@WSJTX.groups.io
Subject: Re: [WSJTX] QSO sequence #QSO_practices



No I'm not, you are talking semantics here. I am referring to the sequence messaging and as it's a prescribed order it is in itself a protocol, albeit not a data one.


It is I and others it seems who want to ignore calls responding to a CQ without a grid square so would like to have the choice to ignore them.


You seem to be defending the disabling of TX1 and misreading or even disregarding the viewpoint of others. This is a simple request so that operators can have the choice to disregard those responders who don't use TX1 as in the recommended sequence in the manual section 7.1.


If this stops me from working those with non-standard calls then that is down to my choice and I must live with the consequences. It doesn't stop operators from doing exactly what they are doing now, it is simply to stop my auto sequence from being triggered what I consider invalid.



73 Charlie



Stay safe out there




-----Original Message-----

From: main@WSJTX.groups.io [mailto:main@WSJTX.groups.io] On Behalf Of groups@...

Sent: 01 October 2021 14:25

To: main@WSJTX.groups.io

Subject: Re: [WSJTX] QSO sequence #QSO_practices


On 01/10/2021 13:52, Bill Somerville wrote:

> Charlie,


> you are confusing the message protocols and the order of messages

> exchanged in QSOs, they are very different things. No changes were

> needed to the protocols to enable the application to automatically

> select the Tx2 message when replying to a CQ call, nor to select an

> RR73 grid square message when replying to an R+report message or equivalent.


> Why do you take the view that a reply to a CQ call without a grid

> square should be ignored by the software? A lot of work was put into

> the current 77-bit payload protocols to support non-standard calls,

> why do you think that is of no value to you? I should point out that

> often the most desirable QSO partners may have non-standard calls.


> Your proposal is not fair, in fact it is grossly unfair to those users

> who have to use non-standard callsigns!


> If operators reply to your CQ calls with no grid (enforced or

> otherwise), then please understand that is their choice. You can

> choose to ignore them and work a different station, but the software

> itself is not going to support automation of such censorship.


> 73

> Bill

> G4WJS.



I agree it is unfair to ignore non-standard calls.


On the other hand I consider it quite acceptable for standard calls.





This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection.

For more info visit www.bullguard.com





73 Phil GM3ZZA

Join main@WSJTX.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.