Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mp04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 4237338000091; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:26:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TBmwr-0005dv-Mk for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:25:45 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TBmwr-0005dm-5Z for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:25:45 +0100 Received: from relay2.mail.vrmd.de ([81.28.224.28]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TBmwp-00007b-LP for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:25:44 +0100 Received: from [81.28.226.111] (helo=webmail.variomedia.de) by relay2.mail.vrmd.de with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TBmwo-0001gd-7z for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:25:42 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:25:41 +0200 From: Sabine Cremer To: In-Reply-To: <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22E5E@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> References: <504E733E.5000208@iup.uni-heidelberg.de>,<8CF5E5BCA46639D-8FC-4829A@webmail-d050.sysops.aol.com> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22D26@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be>,<82bc7bcd97ea679e8be267e8e2add69c@dl1dbc.net> <7E7DFBB4D102A04DB5ADC88D66628A4A0FB22E5E@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> Message-ID: <471908b0534586163cf3bf2502fe2b9b@dl1dbc.net> X-Sender: sabine@dl1dbc.net User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.8.1 X-Relay-User: sc@dl1dbc.net X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: Hi Rik, > as mentioned in the report the test were done off-air, by adding > equal amounts of pure white noise to WSPR / Opera signals of > identical > amplitude. > So no QRM/QRN or QSB involved. Maybe I will do these tests over with > QRN and/or QSB added (if there is some interest and if time permits). [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Scan-Signature: 0b2d339ae1d48966556dfb6ad64e2bce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: LF: RE: RE: =?UTF-8?Q?=5Brsgb=5Flf=5Fgroup=5D=20Re=3A=20LF=3A=20slow?= =?UTF-8?Q?=20WSPR=3F?= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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-sid: 3039ac1dc14850508d9273ca X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Rik, > as mentioned in the report the test were done off-air, by adding > equal amounts of pure white noise to WSPR / Opera signals of > identical > amplitude. > So no QRM/QRN or QSB involved. Maybe I will do these tests over with > QRN and/or QSB added (if there is some interest and if time permits). I would be very interested in the results! Don't get me wrong, I don't want to know what the *best software* is, I would like to learn what are the differences using the various algorithms and WHY this is so! It is obviously, that you are the right person to give these answers. ;-) 73 Sabine, DL1DBC