Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Why\s+were\s+there\s+so\s+many\s+busted\s+skimmer\s+spots\s+during\s+WAE\?\s*$/: 11 ]

Total 11 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Why were there so many busted skimmer spots during WAE? (score: 1)
Author: Barry W2UP <w2up.co@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:53:44 -0600
Title says it all. I've never seen so many bad skimmer spots. Barry W2UP (@W4YY for the contest) _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-08/msg00029.html (6,953 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why were there so many busted skimmer spots during WAE? (score: 1)
Author: N4ZR <n4zr@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:18:38 -0400
Interesting question, Barry.  Any particular pattern you noticed, like WAE appended to the callsign, or whatever?  There have been no changes to CW Skimmer in years. Something to consider is connecti
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-08/msg00031.html (8,130 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why were there so many busted skimmer spots during WAE? (score: 1)
Author: Richard F DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:39:32 -0400
Which skimmer were people connected to? I was linked up via the W3LPL and the VE7CC programs and noted very few busts. 73 Rich NN3W _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-08/msg00032.html (10,121 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why were there so many busted skimmer spots during WAE? (score: 1)
Author: <dj7ww@t-online.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 19:20:29 +0200
I guess Skimmers posted call signs from qtc groups sent by participants. 73 Peter --Original Message-- From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+dj7ww=t-online.de@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Barry
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-08/msg00034.html (9,025 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why were there so many busted skimmer spots during WAE? (score: 1)
Author: Björn Ekelund <bjorn@ekelund.nu>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 19:38:01 +0200
Unfortunately it seems some skimmer operators use the "minimal" setting rather than "normal" for callsign validation in CW Skimmer Server. Probably because they like large spot counts. Or just out of
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-08/msg00035.html (10,380 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why were there so many busted skimmer spots during WAE? (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Smith VE9AA" <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:52:20 -0300
I noticed a couple, but really not many. I have no way to know if the vy few bloopers I saw were generated by the RBN or a human. Those 15-20% contest I am assisted, I connect to VE7CC which I find v
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-08/msg00036.html (9,047 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why were there so many busted skimmer spots during WAE? (score: 1)
Author: N4ZR <n4zr@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:58:35 -0400
Good thought. We recommend normal validation for CW and aggressive for RTTY. Currently, with 145 nodes connected, 11 are running minimal validation and 10 are running aggressive 73, Pete N4ZR Check o
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-08/msg00037.html (11,065 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why were there so many busted skimmer spots during WAE? (score: 1)
Author: Andy KU7T <ku7t@ku7t.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 00:08:49 +0000
Aggressive is needed for 6m here, otherwise I am spotting a lot of Europe from W7 . Otherwise, Normal is the way to go. Why would we ever need Minimum? If just for experimenting, could RBN network re
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-08/msg00039.html (12,803 bytes)

9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why were there so many busted skimmer spots during WAE? (score: 1)
Author: N4ZR <n4zr@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 21:56:32 -0400
I doubt it.  CW Skimmer looks for multiple repetitions of a callsign (minimum 2), and keywords such as CQ and TEST to identify CQ messages. QTC messages don't fit this template. 73, Pete N4ZR Check o
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-08/msg00040.html (10,590 bytes)

10. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why were there so many busted skimmer spots during WAE? (score: 1)
Author: N4ZR <n4zr@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 21:58:56 -0400
Fair point, Bjorn. However out of ~145 nodes currently active, only 11 report that they are using "minimal" validation, while 11 others report they are using "aggressive". 73, Pete N4ZR Check out the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-08/msg00041.html (11,976 bytes)

11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Why were there so many busted skimmer spots during WAE? (score: 1)
Author: N4ZR <n4zr@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 22:03:15 -0400
Many in each category (minimum and aggressive) are fairly infrequent spotters, Andy, with the "minimums" contributing only limited amounts of pollution to the spot pool.  However, I will write in the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-08/msg00042.html (14,541 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu