Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tracker2] want to get messaging working - please send messages (or volunteer to receive one)

Expand Messages
  • James Ewen
    ... Okay, a rubber duckie is less than an optimal antenna, but you are getting packets into the network. What s your outgoing path? Are you using WIDE2-2 or
    Message 1 of 16 , Oct 3, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Eric Fort <eric.fort@...> wrote:

      > I have one tnc and radio - a t2-301 conbo unit attached to a garmin
      > nuvi350. The present antenna is a rubber duckie bought from argent data.
      > this is af6ep-1.

      Okay, a rubber duckie is less than an optimal antenna, but you are
      getting packets into the network.

      What's your outgoing path? Are you using WIDE2-2 or WIDE2-1? It's
      unknown what you are using as the raw packets show WIDE2, but the path
      is not marked as used up, nor are there any digipeater callsigns
      inserted. It could be a configuration error on your part, or just more
      improperly set up digipeaters.

      > Just this evening I installed aprsis32 on the laptop and
      > set it as internet connected only. the laptop over internet only is
      > af6ep-3. aprs.fi sees them both, but they don't see each other, actually
      > after running for the last couple hours I just checked again, af6ep-3 is now
      > showing af6ep-1 but af6ep-1 has yet to see af6ep-3.

      Do you have some method of pushing packets from AF6EP-3 from the
      internet to the local RF network? Have you sent a message from AF6EP-3
      to AF6EP-1 which would cause a courtesy position packet to be gated to
      the local area? If you have no idea what I am asking, it would be
      useful for you to go read up on what it takes to send messages through
      i-gates, links to such documents already having been shared in this
      thread.

      > I can send messages to
      > my email from af6ep-3 but not from af6ep-1 so internet to internet works,
      > but any messaging to or from the rf side (af6ep-1) fails. looking at
      > aprs.fi raw cached packets for af6ep-1 I see it trying to send the message
      > to my email, but the packets are bad (show in red). Suggestions?

      :EMAIL:ERI:email test1{ab [Invalid message packet]

      How did you send this message? The complaint is about the length of
      the recipient call. It needs to be padded out to 9 characters as per
      chapter 14 of the APRS101 document.
      Can you send an email message from your email client to ERI? ERI is
      not a valid email address. There are many servers out there now
      responding to the EMAIL alias, so perhaps one of them supports a
      shortcut. I know the EMAIL-2 server can have shortcuts configured for
      email addresses. I would suggest not using the EMAIL server due to the
      problems caused by having multiple servers all responding to the
      alias. Use EMAIL-2, there's only one EMAIL-2 server so far.

      :EMAIL-2 :eric.fort@... test-2 from aprsis af6ep-3{EM}

      This message sent to the EMAIL-2 server was formatted properly, and as
      you indicated, it worked.

      Send an improperly formatted message from the internet connected
      client, and you'll find that it won't work either. Having a radio
      system that is improperly wired will cause a problem with being
      successful. Having an improperly set deviation will cause a problem
      with being successful. Sending improperly formatted packets will cause
      a problem with being successful. You have to do everything right for
      things to work. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades... close isn't
      good enough. Computers are not forgiving... they expect you to do your
      part so they can do theirs...

      > I am
      > getting decodes when I hook up to the serial port of the t2-301 and they
      > appear good. I'll check my deviation as soon as I'm able, though I have not
      > changed it from factory settings and would have expected scott to have set
      > it properly prior to being shipped as the t2-301 is a bits to rf and rf to
      > bits device.

      It looks like you are probably close to where you want to be due to
      the packets getting picked up and gated to the APRS-IS. At the very
      least some of your packets are being gated.

      BTW, every OT device that Scott makes is a bits to RF and RF to bits
      device... so are the TinyTrak, KPC, TNC-X and all other packet TNCs.
      It's always best to check your equipment for proper operation.

      --
      James
      VE6SRV
    • Eric Fort
      Replies threaded below: ... WIDE2-1 is my current outgoing path. ... network to deliver packets to and from RF. I have attempted to send a message from
      Message 2 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Replies threaded below:

        On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:53 PM, James Ewen <ve6srv@...> wrote:
         

        On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Eric Fort <eric.fort@...> wrote:

        > I have one tnc and radio - a t2-301 conbo unit attached to a garmin
        > nuvi350. The present antenna is a rubber duckie bought from argent data.
        > this is af6ep-1.

        Okay, a rubber duckie is less than an optimal antenna, but you are
        getting packets into the network.

        What's your outgoing path? Are you using WIDE2-2 or WIDE2-1? It's
        unknown what you are using as the raw packets show WIDE2, but the path
        is not marked as used up, nor are there any digipeater callsigns
        inserted. It could be a configuration error on your part, or just more
        improperly set up digipeaters.



        WIDE2-1 is my current outgoing path.
         
        > Just this evening I installed aprsis32 on the laptop and
        > set it as internet connected only. the laptop over internet only is
        > af6ep-3. aprs.fi sees them both, but they don't see each other, actually
        > after running for the last couple hours I just checked again, af6ep-3 is now
        > showing af6ep-1 but af6ep-1 has yet to see af6ep-3.

        Do you have some method of pushing packets from AF6EP-3 from the
        internet to the local RF network? Have you sent a message from AF6EP-3
        to AF6EP-1 which would cause a courtesy position packet to be gated to
        the local area? If you have no idea what I am asking, it would be
        useful for you to go read up on what it takes to send messages through
        i-gates, links to such documents already having been shared in this
        thread.

        AD6EP-3 is connected to the internet only.  It must rely solely on the network to deliver packets to and from RF.  I have attempted to send a message from AF6EP-3 to AF6EP-1 and after several hours the message has not made it, even though I can see AF6EP-1 displayed at AF6EP-3.  I never have however seen AF6EP-3 show up on the display at af6ep-1. 
         

        > I can send messages to
        > my email from af6ep-3 but not from af6ep-1 so internet to internet works,
        > but any messaging to or from the rf side (af6ep-1) fails. looking at
        > aprs.fi raw cached packets for af6ep-1 I see it trying to send the message
        > to my email, but the packets are bad (show in red). Suggestions?

        :EMAIL:ERI:email test1{ab [Invalid message packet]

        How did you send this message? The complaint is about the length of
        the recipient call. It needs to be padded out to 9 characters as per
        chapter 14 of the APRS101 document.
        Can you send an email message from your email client to ERI? ERI is
        not a valid email address. There are many servers out there now
        responding to the EMAIL alias, so perhaps one of them supports a
        shortcut. I know the EMAIL-2 server can have shortcuts configured for
        email addresses. I would suggest not using the EMAIL server due to the
        problems caused by having multiple servers all responding to the
        alias. Use EMAIL-2, there's only one EMAIL-2 server so far.


        The message was formatted as indicated here: http://www.aprs-is.net/email.aspx but I may have gotten the syntax incorrect.  I'll try using the email-2 alias.
         
        :EMAIL-2 :eric.fort@... test-2 from aprsis af6ep-3{EM}

        This message sent to the EMAIL-2 server was formatted properly, and as
        you indicated, it worked.


        This is probably because aprsis32 did the formatting for me.
         
        Send an improperly formatted message from the internet connected
        client, and you'll find that it won't work either. Having a radio
        system that is improperly wired will cause a problem with being
        successful. Having an improperly set deviation will cause a problem
        with being successful. Sending improperly formatted packets will cause
        a problem with being successful. You have to do everything right for
        things to work. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades... close isn't
        good enough. Computers are not forgiving... they expect you to do your
        part so they can do theirs...


        Well I've driven around with it and gotten good tracks, I can use messaging to send commands to the t2-301 such as requesting the firmware version and get a proper response.  From that I would gather that the wiring is at least proper and shows that the t2-301 and nuvi350 are on speaking terms with each other.  Packet formatting and syntax could be a problem due to inexperience and Deviation while I hope to check it has not been altered from the way it was delivered from argent wherein I'd expect them to set it properly.
         

        > I am
        > getting decodes when I hook up to the serial port of the t2-301 and they
        > appear good. I'll check my deviation as soon as I'm able, though I have not
        > changed it from factory settings and would have expected scott to have set
        > it properly prior to being shipped as the t2-301 is a bits to rf and rf to
        > bits device.

        It looks like you are probably close to where you want to be due to
        the packets getting picked up and gated to the APRS-IS. At the very
        least some of your packets are being gated.

        BTW, every OT device that Scott makes is a bits to RF and RF to bits
        device... so are the TinyTrak, KPC, TNC-X and all other packet TNCs.
        It's always best to check your equipment for proper operation.


        We seem to have a slight difference in terms when we claim bits to rf.  The t2-301 and t3-301 by argent are truly bits to rf and rf to bits devices.  the ot2m and kpc-3 for instance are not.  The former, I attach serial BITS to one end and an ANTENNA to the other and that antenna radiates and receives radio waves.  The later examples given interface to bits and make audio that then can be used to modulate a radio and make rf and take rx audio and make bits.  these later examples still require a radio as they are bits to audio, not bits to rf.  Part of the point I was making is that in a device that's bits to rf, the deviation ought be set properly once at the manufacture and left alone as it is a complete unit.  something like the later examples likely require fiddling and tweaking depending what radio they get interfaced to and the requirements of said modulator.
         
        --
        James
        VE6SRV


        Eric
      • James Ewen
        ... Okay, great... you re good on your end... it s the network that s screwed up. ... Have you read about gating to RF yet? That does NOT happen automatically
        Message 3 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Eric Fort <eric.fort@...> wrote:

          > WIDE2-1 is my current outgoing path.

          Okay, great... you're good on your end... it's the network that's screwed up.

          > AD6EP-3 is connected to the internet only. It must rely solely on the
          > network to deliver packets to and from RF.

          Have you read about gating to RF yet? That does NOT happen
          automatically on a regular basis.

          > I have attempted to send a
          > message from AF6EP-3 to AF6EP-1 and after several hours the message has not
          > made it, even though I can see AF6EP-1 displayed at AF6EP-3. I never have
          > however seen AF6EP-3 show up on the display at af6ep-1.

          Again, have you read the information presented that describes the
          process and all the bit that need to be in place and working properly
          for this to happen? All of which is out of your control?

          > The message was formatted as indicated here:
          > http://www.aprs-is.net/email.aspx but I may have gotten the syntax
          > incorrect. I'll try using the email-2 alias.

          You still never answered the question... HOW did you send that message?

          > Well I've driven around with it and gotten good tracks, I can use
          > messaging to send commands to the t2-301 such as requesting the firmware
          > version and get a proper response. From that I would gather that the wiring
          > is at least proper and shows that the t2-301 and nuvi350 are on speaking
          > terms with each other. Packet formatting and syntax could be a problem due
          > to inexperience and Deviation while I hope to check it has not been altered
          > from the way it was delivered from argent wherein I'd expect them to set it
          > properly.

          As I said, you're probably in the ballpark...

          > We seem to have a slight difference in terms when we claim bits to rf.
          > The t2-301 and t3-301 by argent are truly bits to rf and rf to bits devices.
          > the ot2m and kpc-3 for instance are not.

          Well, we're going to disagree...

          > The former, I attach serial BITS
          > to one end and an ANTENNA to the other and that antenna radiates and
          > receives radio waves. The later examples given interface to bits and make
          > audio that then can be used to modulate a radio and make rf and take rx
          > audio and make bits. these later examples still require a radio as they are
          > bits to audio, not bits to rf.

          You do know that the DR-135 is a radio, right? Just because you open
          the case and stuff the TNC inside the case doesn't change the fact
          that you are pushing audio out the wires from the OT device and into a
          radio. It matters not where the TNC resides, nor where the radio
          interface connector is presented, either inside or on the back plane
          of the radio.

          > Part of the point I was making is that in a
          > device that's bits to rf, the deviation ought be set properly once at the
          > manufacture and left alone as it is a complete unit. something like the
          > later examples likely require fiddling and tweaking depending what radio
          > they get interfaced to and the requirements of said modulator.

          This is true... the OT2-135 is going to be installed in a known radio.
          However, the deviation is set via the configuration firmware. Loading
          new firmware, a new configuration, or just plain user twiddling can
          change the deviation adjustment. There's no guarantee that the
          deviation is adjusted perfectly. One can assume that the deviation is
          set properly, or remove all doubt and check it. You're getting
          decoded, but we have no idea how many packets you have sent, nor the
          number that have been digipeated locally on your RF network. Your
          deviation may be bang on. We can't tell from here... It is one of the
          fundamental settings that can make or break successful packet
          operations. You need to tell us if you're good there or not. As stated
          numerous times previously... you're close enough that at least some of
          your packets are being decoded. We can't tell if it's all of them or
          just some.

          --
          James
          VE6SRV
        • Eric Fort
          ok, 2 possible veriables looked at and one improved. I looked at the deviation using the calibrate command and alternating tones on a spectrum analyzer and it
          Message 4 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
             ok, 2 possible veriables looked at and one improved.  I looked at the deviation using the calibrate command and alternating tones on a spectrum analyzer and it at least liiks reasonable, somewhere between 12-15khz with alternating high/low tones and the deviation looked about the same as the touch tones sent by the ft-2800.  I also removed the rubber ducky antenna and the t2-301 that is AF6EP-1 is now attached to a Hustler G-270 Base antenna up about 20 ft.  still strange that  I'm not hearing n6vig in victorville.  I did just get a message successfully received from NV7PC-7.  Now if I could figure out how to reply.

            also what SHOULD my 2 tone deviation be?  more antenna seems to be a big help.  Beginning to think more tx power (like a dedicated dr-135) might help a bit too.

            the rest threaded below.


            On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 6:16 AM, James Ewen <ve6srv@...> wrote:
             

            On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Eric Fort <eric.fort@...> wrote:

            > WIDE2-1 is my current outgoing path.

            Okay, great... you're good on your end... it's the network that's screwed up.


            > AD6EP-3 is connected to the internet only. It must rely solely on the
            > network to deliver packets to and from RF.

            Have you read about gating to RF yet? That does NOT happen
            automatically on a regular basis.



            I've read this multiple times.  the description of how it's supposed to work in theory looks really good.  The reality you describe not quite as good.  I'll take you at your word as I'm new at this.
             
            > I have attempted to send a
            > message from AF6EP-3 to AF6EP-1 and after several hours the message has not
            > made it, even though I can see AF6EP-1 displayed at AF6EP-3. I never have
            > however seen AF6EP-3 show up on the display at af6ep-1.

            Again, have you read the information presented that describes the
            process and all the bit that need to be in place and working properly
            for this to happen? All of which is out of your control?


            yes
             

            > The message was formatted as indicated here:
            > http://www.aprs-is.net/email.aspx but I may have gotten the syntax
            > incorrect. I'll try using the email-2 alias.

            You still never answered the question... HOW did you send that message?


            on the nuvi I selected create message.  I then entered what I thought was the proper syntax to send a message to an email address.  what it aparently picked up and parsed as the supposed to call was the first part of my email address.  much of this is likely human error.  I'm guessing that I got the syntax and message formatting wrong upon entering it into the nuvi - if only FMI allowed for a dialog to be presented on the nuvi where the tracker requested the to address and the message body seperately.

             

            > Well I've driven around with it and gotten good tracks, I can use
            > messaging to send commands to the t2-301 such as requesting the firmware
            > version and get a proper response. From that I would gather that the wiring
            > is at least proper and shows that the t2-301 and nuvi350 are on speaking
            > terms with each other. Packet formatting and syntax could be a problem due
            > to inexperience and Deviation while I hope to check it has not been altered
            > from the way it was delivered from argent wherein I'd expect them to set it
            > properly.

            As I said, you're probably in the ballpark...


            > We seem to have a slight difference in terms when we claim bits to rf.
            > The t2-301 and t3-301 by argent are truly bits to rf and rf to bits devices.
            > the ot2m and kpc-3 for instance are not.

            Well, we're going to disagree...


            > The former, I attach serial BITS
            > to one end and an ANTENNA to the other and that antenna radiates and
            > receives radio waves. The later examples given interface to bits and make
            > audio that then can be used to modulate a radio and make rf and take rx
            > audio and make bits. these later examples still require a radio as they are
            > bits to audio, not bits to rf.

            You do know that the DR-135 is a radio, right? Just because you open
            the case and stuff the TNC inside the case doesn't change the fact
            that you are pushing audio out the wires from the OT device and into a
            radio. It matters not where the TNC resides, nor where the radio
            interface connector is presented, either inside or on the back plane
            of the radio.


            > Part of the point I was making is that in a
            > device that's bits to rf, the deviation ought be set properly once at the
            > manufacture and left alone as it is a complete unit. something like the
            > later examples likely require fiddling and tweaking depending what radio
            > they get interfaced to and the requirements of said modulator.

            This is true... the OT2-135 is going to be installed in a known radio.
            However, the deviation is set via the configuration firmware. Loading
            new firmware, a new configuration, or just plain user twiddling can
            change the deviation adjustment. There's no guarantee that the
            deviation is adjusted perfectly. One can assume that the deviation is
            set properly, or remove all doubt and check it. You're getting
            decoded, but we have no idea how many packets you have sent, nor the
            number that have been digipeated locally on your RF network. Your
            deviation may be bang on. We can't tell from here... It is one of the
            fundamental settings that can make or break successful packet
            operations. You need to tell us if you're good there or not. As stated
            numerous times previously... you're close enough that at least some of
            your packets are being decoded. We can't tell if it's all of them or
            just some.

            --
            James
            VE6SRV


          • James Ewen
            ... Are you using a wide band FM transmitter? ... Your deviation should be about 3 kHz. ... An antenna to toss your signal out into the ether helps. What does
            Message 5 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Eric Fort <eric.fort@...> wrote:

              > I looked at the deviation using the calibrate command and alternating tones
              > on a spectrum analyzer and it at least liiks reasonable, somewhere between
              > 12-15khz with alternating high/low tones and the deviation looked about
              > the same as the touch tones sent by the ft-2800.

              Are you using a wide band FM transmitter?

              > also what SHOULD my 2 tone deviation be?

              Your deviation should be about 3 kHz.

              > more antenna seems to be a big help. Beginning to think
              > more tx power (like a dedicated dr-135) might help a bit too.

              An antenna to toss your signal out into the ether helps. What does the
              channel sound like around there? Is it busy, or do you hear a lot of
              dead air? More gain and more power is the solution a lot of people
              use. Yell louder to get heard... don't work towards reducing the noise
              level, just yell louder. Obviously yelling louder is easier to do than
              trying to reduce the noise level.

              > I've read this multiple times. the description of how it's supposed to work
              > in theory looks really good. The reality you describe not quite as good.
              > I'll take you at your word as I'm new at this.

              The theory is how it HAS to work.

              If you are thinking that you're going to see your internet based
              station on RF on a regular basis, you're going to be disappointed.

              > on the nuvi I selected create message. I then entered what I thought was
              > the proper syntax to send a message to an email address.

              Hmm, the NUVI should pad out the destination call properly.

              > I'm guessing that I got the syntax and message formatting wrong
              > upon entering it into the nuvi

              Just tell the unit to send a message to email, and in the message body
              just put "joe@... This is my message" Anything up to the first
              space is the email address, and after the first space is the message.

              > if only FMI allowed for a dialog to be presented on the nuvi where
              > the tracker requested the to address and the message body seperately.

              Fleet Management has no clue about APRS, let alone sending an APRS
              message to a specialty address for forwarding on to the internet.

              The AvMap G6 has a custom message function for APRS, but still is not
              tailored specifically for sending email. APRSISCE/32 does however have
              a specialized input dialog for email messages via APRS messages.

              --
              James
              VE6SRV
            • Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)
              ... Create Message expects a dash followed by the addressed APRS callsign followed by the message body. If you don t put the leading dash, then the Tracker2
              Message 6 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                On 10/4/2012 4:36 PM, Eric Fort wrote:

                on the nuvi I selected create message.  I then entered what I thought was the proper syntax to send a message to an email address.  what it aparently picked up and parsed as the supposed to call was the first part of my email address.  much of this is likely human error.  I'm guessing that I got the syntax and message formatting wrong upon entering it into the nuvi - if only FMI allowed for a dialog to be presented on the nuvi where the tracker requested the to address and the message body seperately.

                Create Message expects a dash followed by the addressed APRS callsign followed by the message body.  If you don't put the leading dash, then the Tracker2 will send it to some default that seems to be either the station you last received a message from or the one you last sent one to (which may the same thing if you receive an ack).  I always try to put the -callsign in there when in doubt.  So, you should enter the following:

                -EMAIL-2 me@... Text of e-mail essage

                Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ - Author of APRSISCE for Windows Mobile and Win32

              • Eric Fort
                ... I thought I mad that clear. I plug serial bits into one end of an argent t2-301 http://www.argentdata.com/images/fc301d-vhf1.jpg. I attach an antenna to
                Message 7 of 16 , Oct 4, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:53 PM, James Ewen <ve6srv@...> wrote:

                  > **
                  >
                  >
                  > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Eric Fort <eric.fort@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > I looked at the deviation using the calibrate command and alternating
                  > tones
                  > > on a spectrum analyzer and it at least liiks reasonable, somewhere
                  > between
                  > > 12-15khz with alternating high/low tones and the deviation looked about
                  > > the same as the touch tones sent by the ft-2800.
                  >
                  > Are you using a wide band FM transmitter?
                  >
                  >
                  I thought I mad that clear. I plug serial bits into one end of an argent
                  t2-301 http://www.argentdata.com/images/fc301d-vhf1.jpg. I attach an
                  antenna to the bnc connector (happens to be on the same end....) - magic
                  happens.... well ok vastly simplified but the general idea I did configure
                  my callsign and connect the nuvi350 to it for gps and fmi data exchange but
                  basicly t2-301 with proper accessories as provided by argent.

                  >
                  > > also what SHOULD my 2 tone deviation be?
                  >
                  > Your deviation should be about 3 kHz.
                  >
                  >
                  would not a wideband fm transmitter be about 100kc deviation? I'll see if
                  I can get a better measurement and verify what I found on the spectrum
                  analyzer, really though the signal I was seeing at 144.390 out of the
                  t2-301 in calibrate mode varied in width depending upon how many db down
                  from the peak one measured. it may be only 3khz wide at the peak.


                  >
                  >

                  > > more antenna seems to be a big help. Beginning to think
                  > > more tx power (like a dedicated dr-135) might help a bit too.
                  >
                  > An antenna to toss your signal out into the ether helps. What does the
                  > channel sound like around there? Is it busy, or do you hear a lot of
                  > dead air? More gain and more power is the solution a lot of people
                  > use. Yell louder to get heard... don't work towards reducing the noise
                  > level, just yell louder. Obviously yelling louder is easier to do than
                  > trying to reduce the noise level.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  144.390 around here has reasonably constant traffic on it. from just
                  listening I'd say it's busy enough to have someone transmitting 90% of the
                  time without having too much trouble with collisions. I'd love to reduce
                  the noise level, but much of that seems to be out of my control.


                  > > I've read this multiple times. the description of how it's supposed to
                  > work
                  > > in theory looks really good. The reality you describe not quite as good.
                  > > I'll take you at your word as I'm new at this.
                  >
                  > The theory is how it HAS to work.
                  >
                  > If you are thinking that you're going to see your internet based
                  > station on RF on a regular basis, you're going to be disappointed.
                  >
                  >
                  theoretically as it's described I figure it should work perfectly every
                  time (in a perfect world) to send messages in either direction.
                  Observationally and as you describe it, I'm learning not so much....


                  >
                  > > on the nuvi I selected create message. I then entered what I thought was
                  > > the proper syntax to send a message to an email address.
                  >
                  > Hmm, the NUVI should pad out the destination call properly.
                  >
                  >
                  > > I'm guessing that I got the syntax and message formatting wrong
                  > > upon entering it into the nuvi
                  >
                  > Just tell the unit to send a message to email, and in the message body
                  > just put "joe@... This is my message" Anything up to the first
                  > space is the email address, and after the first space is the message.
                  >
                  >
                  > > if only FMI allowed for a dialog to be presented on the nuvi where
                  > > the tracker requested the to address and the message body seperately.
                  >
                  > Fleet Management has no clue about APRS, let alone sending an APRS
                  > message to a specialty address for forwarding on to the internet.
                  >
                  > The AvMap G6 has a custom message function for APRS, but still is not
                  > tailored specifically for sending email. APRSISCE/32 does however have
                  > a specialized input dialog for email messages via APRS messages.
                  >
                  >
                  well one can wish! not much one can do there though as that's a garmin
                  design decision not a decision by argent or scott.

                  Eric


                  > --
                  > James
                  > VE6SRV
                  >
                  >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.