Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dd05.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 940DC38000082; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 03:14:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1SqJ10-0000Nl-E8 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 08:13:14 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1SqJ0z-0000Nc-Qr for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 08:13:13 +0100 Received: from out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.243]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SqJ0x-0001uH-JA for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 08:13:12 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiMFADpoAlBOk8Qf/2dsb2JhbABFoiADlgWBCIIbFAEBA0kCLAIIAgEHARw5AQQaBiQdAQICAQGIAJlOoB6RQgOIFoU6l3GCXw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,588,1336345200"; d="scan'208,217";a="41967755" Received: from host-78-147-196-31.as13285.net (HELO xphd97xgq27nyf) ([78.147.196.31]) by out1.ip07ir2.opaltelecom.net with SMTP; 15 Jul 2012 08:13:10 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01cd6259$484b2cb0$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> From: "mal hamilton" To: "rsgb" Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 07:13:06 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 3.1 (+++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Reference recent discussion about Opera es Wspr for long haul DX. Although these modes have some merit they would be more vunerable over long distances to QSB and long bursts of QRN and therefore a decode would be difficult. QRSS es DFCW would be more suitable because part of the callsign/information would be readable at some time during the transmission. I have noticed this on local data transmissions on 500 Khz, no decodes because of QSB or QRN bursts but I can clearly see the trace and had it been QRSS or DFCW I could easily have had an ID or parts of the information. ie With data modes a DECODE or nothing, with QRSS/DFCW at least some information. [...] Content analysis details: (3.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [62.24.128.243 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.0 FSL_XM_419 Old OE version in X-Mailer only seen in 419 spam -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.4 FSL_UA FSL_UA 1.7 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 AXB_XMAILER_MIMEOLE_OL_024C2 X-Scan-Signature: 61577e2058c0d3bf1737d7de6ed6eb16 Subject: LF: DX Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01CD6259.47F2FA90" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:395215200:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d409150026de56a9f X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01CD6259.47F2FA90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Reference recent discussion about Opera es Wspr for long haul DX. Although these modes have some merit they would be more vunerable over = long distances to QSB and long bursts of QRN and therefore a decode = would be difficult.=20 QRSS es DFCW would be more suitable because part of the = callsign/information would be readable at some time during the = transmission.=20 I have noticed this on local data transmissions on 500 Khz, no decodes = because of QSB or QRN bursts but I can clearly see the trace and had it = been QRSS or DFCW I could easily have had an ID or parts of the = information. ie With data modes a DECODE or nothing, with QRSS/DFCW at least some = information. de mal/g3kev ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01CD6259.47F2FA90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Reference recent discussion = about Opera=20 es Wspr for long haul DX.
Although these modes have some merit they would = be more=20 vunerable over long distances to QSB and long bursts of QRN and = therefore a=20 decode would be difficult.
QRSS es DFCW would be more suitable because part = of the=20 callsign/information would be readable at some time during the = transmission.=20
I have noticed this on local data = transmissions on=20 500 Khz, no decodes because of QSB or QRN bursts but I can clearly see = the trace=20 and had it been QRSS or DFCW I could easily have had an ID or = parts of=20 the information.
ie
With data modes a DECODE or nothing, with = QRSS/DFCW at=20 least some information.
 
de mal/g3kev
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01CD6259.47F2FA90--