APRX not gate courtesy position to RF after message

[F4FXL]

APRX does not pass posit packet when gating a message to RF.
IGate rules state that along messages a courtesy posit shall also be agted to RF.
When no t/pm source filters are specified, only message is gated to RF and the posit is dropped.

[PhirePhly]

Please provide a citation for the relevant RF-gate rule requiring this behavior and background on the amount of testing you've performed on this patch.

[F4FXL]

Hi,

As per http://www.aprs-is.net/IGateDetails.aspx a posit shall be gated to RF along the message.

Testing so far :

• On the bench (not on ragular APRS frequency) a posit gets transmitted along the message
• Issue : if a nearby igate already sent the posit to RF the posit is not set. this might be an issue when the igate is the only one serving the message recipient. But I guess the is wanted behavior complying to rule 4 of above link...

[PhirePhly]

I'm not thrilled with this patch, because if I'm reading it right, it will keep RF-gating position packets until the message drops out of the history db, so one message could trigger dozens of position packets, where I think the original intention is to gate only the next position packet.

I'm also dubious of how much value the position packet has for a message conversation, but I don't have a strong opinion against it.

[F4FXL]

Actually further testing has shown exactly the behavior you describe..... You are right about the original intention, only gate the next packet after the message.
Ideally this shall be handled as some sort of state machine : whenever there is an outgoing message wait for a posit for a short amount of time (5 or 10 minutes) on the posit is sent, clear the message from the history. This all regardless of any source filtering.

[F4FXL]

Ok nevermind my previous comment, only one posit gets sent after the message... I had some test code locally creating the above behavior...
However as soon as a filter is used (eg we use -p/F0 to block novice which are not allowed for APRS) the message posit no longer gets sent.... I think the logic shall move outside the the check of the presence of filters