¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io
  1. Bpq32
  2. Topics

Messages from @winlink.org held

 

Messages from SERVICE@... are held due to "Probable Invalid From Call". Do I have something set improperly?

73,
Eric WG3K
 

More then likely means the station you are sending to is not a registered Winlink user, but that is my guess.?
 

John had to incorporate certain code into BPQ to prevent non amateur radio operators from connecting to BPQ.? It does not prevent all, but it will hold the messages so that they can be handled manually.
?
Messages from SERVICE at winlink.org do not come from a valid amateur radio call sign so therefore are held for manually processing.? The reasons messages would come from SERVICE@ are things like catalog request responses, critical information messages, or non delivery notifications, among other things.
?
You just have to release them manually.?? The big question I have is why are you using BPQ to retrieve winlink messages? Are they for yourself or for your users?? No offense towards John but I don't see any benefit in allowing BPQ to collect winlink messages. Really just curious.
?
?
Mark
?
 

bqp32, FOR ME, allows many, many more ways to connect via radio and participate in the winlink system.
?
with all the newer/faster modes being adopted, slower modes are removed from 'winlink brand' gateways.
?
while there is no argument that faster modes are, well, faster, they come with more 'overhead'.
?
i can use a smartphone and a radio and 'do' 300baud hf packet.
no need to pack a windows binary capable computer on the bike to connect to my bpq node.
?
others have teensy tnc doing ardop and now robust packet.
?
99% of the time i'm sending a SUBJECT LINE ONLY message and slow modes are just fine.
?
so that's my take.
for the future;
there is a friendly conversation on the winlink reflector about how much faster vara fm is over packet 1200.
(not mentioning fm packet 9600)
?
yes, vara fm is faster but you have to tote around a windows binary capable computer.
?
i currently have an android smartphone and a kenwood th-d72a.
that's all i need to connect to a 1200 or 9600 gateway.
and share the frequency at the same time with other packet users.
?
while i don't think it'll happen tomorrow, new sysops smitten with raw speed will be tempted to follow suit and drop packet from their vhf/uhf gateways.
shutting down legacy/easy/low overhead access and further requiring the 3rd wheel of a pc running a windows binary.
?
now, lest i be painted as anti anything, i'm not.
?
my home shack is happily running vara hf/fm/sat
?
i do have a maestro evolve laptop running the same for when i pack 'heavy' or take the truck.
of course my bpq node will answer vara connect requests as well
:)
?
sorry for the ramble.
;
kb0wlf
?
 

Normally the from address of a mail message should be a valid callsign, or at least a string that could be a callsign. SERVICE doesn't conform. There are a few hard coded exceptions (SYSTEM, SYSOP and others) but SERVICE isn't one of them.

There is a check box on the mail config screen to disable this check if it bothers you but that can have other consequences.

73,
John

On 04/09/2024 22:27, Eric H. Christensen via groups.io wrote:
Messages from SERVICE@... are held due to "Probable Invalid From Call". Do I have something set improperly?

73,
Eric WG3K
 

On Thursday, September 5th, 2024 at 10:20, Mark Taylor <mtaylor@...> wrote:

The big question I have is why are you using BPQ to retrieve winlink messages? Are they for yourself or for your users?? No offense towards John but I don't see any benefit in allowing BPQ to collect winlink messages. Really just curious.
To me it's a network efficiency thing; it's one-stop shopping. A user can send a single message to multiple addressees, both packet and Winlink, and my BBS has multiple paths for a Winlink message to take to get the message(s) out. This means that a failed path for Winlink delivery doesn't affect the user (e.g. the user doesn't have to waste time trying different paths), the BBS will try all the paths for the user. And the user doesn't have to poll multiple connections for messages, my BBS can push any pending messages to the user, thus freeing up network time for other data.

73,
Eric WG3K
 

On Friday, September 6th, 2024 at 08:33, John G8BPQ <john.wiseman@...> wrote:

Normally the from address of a mail message should be a valid callsign,
or at least a string that could be a callsign. SERVICE doesn't conform.
There are a few hard coded exceptions (SYSTEM, SYSOP and others) but
SERVICE isn't one of them.
SERVICE is now being used to alert users of pending messages from users that aren't on your allow list.

A message from 'user@...' with subject: '//WL2K R/Test' and approximately 409 bytes long is being held at the Winlink CMS pending your approval.

To approve this message and all further messages from 'user@...' simply reply to this message, or if you prefer, edit your accept list to allow (or block) messages from 'user@...'.

The above message will expire on 9/23/2024.

[WG3K << WG3K << SMTP:user@...] Message ID: xxxxx


I wonder if SERVICE should be added to the hard coded exceptions. I'd hate for pending Winlink messages be waiting and the message telling the user also being held for the SYSOP.

73,
Eric WG3K
FM18rp
Packet: WG3K@WG3K.#SMD.MD.USA.NOAM
E-Mail: wg3k@...
 

How does the held message look in manage messages and the message list? Normally from call is limited to 6 chars but if it appears ok on the list and can be read once unheld I'll add the exceptions.

73, John

On 06/09/2024 14:59, Eric H. Christensen via groups.io wrote:
On Friday, September 6th, 2024 at 08:33, John G8BPQ <john.wiseman@...> wrote:

Normally the from address of a mail message should be a valid callsign,
or at least a string that could be a callsign. SERVICE doesn't conform.
There are a few hard coded exceptions (SYSTEM, SYSOP and others) but
SERVICE isn't one of them.
SERVICE is now being used to alert users of pending messages from users that aren't on your allow list.

A message from 'user@...' with subject: '//WL2K R/Test' and approximately 409 bytes long is being held at the Winlink CMS pending your approval.

To approve this message and all further messages from 'user@...' simply reply to this message, or if you prefer, edit your accept list to allow (or block) messages from 'user@...'.

The above message will expire on 9/23/2024.

[WG3K << WG3K << SMTP:user@...] Message ID: xxxxx


I wonder if SERVICE should be added to the hard coded exceptions. I'd hate for pending Winlink messages be waiting and the message telling the user also being held for the SYSOP.

73,
Eric WG3K
FM18rp
Packet: WG3K@WG3K.#SMD.MD.USA.NOAM
E-Mail: wg3k@...
 

Wow Chars!
I just wanted to comment on the word CHARS. Now we know John is a super computer administrator or even a super computer himself? (Humor) the word chars was and still is used in high speed computers to tell activity is looking for or?
? ? ? ¡°LOADING CHARS¡±
John your credentials are amazing. I haven¡¯t see that word is quite awhile.
?That you for loading my chars.

George
N9pno Bpq.
?Path = K5dat m5mdt ka0pnd


Hello
George Kirn had contact with this data.


On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 9:43?AM John G8BPQ via <john.wiseman=[email protected]> wrote:
How does the held message look in manage messages and the message list?
Normally from call is limited to 6 chars but if it appears ok on the
list and can be read once unheld I'll add the exceptions.

73, John

On 06/09/2024 14:59, Eric H. Christensen via wrote:
> On Friday, September 6th, 2024 at 08:33, John G8BPQ <john.wiseman@...> wrote:
>
>> Normally the from address of a mail message should be a valid callsign,
>> or at least a string that could be a callsign. SERVICE doesn't conform.
>> There are a few hard coded exceptions (SYSTEM, SYSOP and others) but
>> SERVICE isn't one of them.
> SERVICE is now being used to alert users of pending messages from users that aren't on your allow list.
>
>? ? ? ?A message from 'user@...' with subject: '//WL2K R/Test' and approximately 409 bytes long is being held at the Winlink CMS pending your approval.
>
>? ? ? ?To approve this message and all further messages from 'user@...' simply reply to this message, or if you prefer, edit your accept list to allow (or block) messages from 'user@...'.
>
>? ? ? ?The above message will expire on 9/23/2024.
>
>? ? ? ?[WG3K << WG3K << SMTP:user@...] Message ID: xxxxx
>
>
> I wonder if SERVICE should be added to the hard coded exceptions.? I'd hate for pending Winlink messages be waiting and the message telling the user also being held for the SYSOP.
>
> 73,
> Eric WG3K
> FM18rp
> Packet: WG3K@WG3K.#SMD.MD.USA.NOAM
> E-Mail: wg3k@...
>
>
>
>
>
 

On Friday, September 6th, 2024 at 10:43, John G8BPQ <john.wiseman@...> wrote:

How does the held message look in manage messages and the message list?
Normally from call is limited to 6 chars but if it appears ok on the
list and can be read once unheld I'll add the exceptions.
It appears to come from SERVIC.

73,
Eric WG3K
FM18rp
Packet: WG3K@WG3K.#SMD.MD.USA.NOAM
E-Mail: wg3k@...
 

Sorry to drag this up again¡­
I¡¯m getting some msgs from SERVIC@... addressed to me KI0BK that are being held so are being delivered in a timely manner to me. ?I could not tell from the above conversation if this was addressed or if turning off all non-call sign filtering is the only solution?
 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

At the moment the only solution is to turn on "Don't check from call" in the main bbs config. The next version will include SERVIC as a valid from call.

73, John


On 03/11/2024 23:02, Jim - KI0BK via groups.io wrote:

Sorry to drag this up again¡­
I¡¯m getting some msgs from SERVIC@... addressed to me KI0BK that are being held so are being delivered in a timely manner to me. ?I could not tell from the above conversation if this was addressed or if turning off all non-call sign filtering is the only solution?
 

Thanks John, I can live with it for now, looking forward to the next version!
TNX es 73

1 - 13 of 13