Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-me02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 22543380000A8; Tue, 8 May 2012 14:50:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1SRpTB-0003aT-2X for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 May 2012 19:49:09 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1SRpTA-0003aK-KG for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 May 2012 19:49:08 +0100 Received: from sidious.london.02.net ([82.132.130.152] helo=mail.o2.co.uk) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SRpT9-0002Mu-1K for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 08 May 2012 19:49:07 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.64] (46.64.39.147) by mail.o2.co.uk (8.5.119.05) (authenticated as g3ldo@o2.co.uk) id 4F53FD910A048212 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 8 May 2012 19:38:56 +0100 Message-ID: <4FA96AAA.4090704@o2.co.uk> Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 19:49:14 +0100 From: Peter Dodd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <4F99A446.4080400@o2.co.uk> <1335704544.3002.5.camel@g4gvw-high-grade> <005501cd2919$aeeb9b90$0401a8c0@xphd97xgq27nyf> <1336230768.3737.10.camel@g4gvw-high-grade> <1336241358.4893.28.camel@g4gvw-high-grade> In-Reply-To: <1336241358.4893.28.camel@g4gvw-high-grade> X-HELO-Warning: Remote host 82.132.130.152 (sidious.london.02.net) used invalid HELO/EHLO mail.o2.co.uk - verification failed 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 Pat, Thanks for the information on CLUED - mos interesting. As I previously mentioned my mast has planning permission with some restrictions, which I now ignore. I feel inclined to let sleeping dogs lie because I can use the mast just when I like. On the other hand an unfettered planning arrangement would be nice - I will have to give it a bit a thought. I have just joined a local computer club under the auspices of the U3A, whose main interest is Linux. From what you say such a move might be timely. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [82.132.130.152 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Scan-Signature: e6de17d69e46ff4ea8db042ef2cd7e46 Subject: Re: LF: UK Ae mast planning info Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:466191008:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d608a4fa96af2186a X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Pat, Thanks for the information on CLUED - mos interesting. As I previously mentioned my mast has planning permission with some restrictions, which I now ignore. I feel inclined to let sleeping dogs lie because I can use the mast just when I like. On the other hand an unfettered planning arrangement would be nice - I will have to give it a bit a thought. I have just joined a local computer club under the auspices of the U3A, whose main interest is Linux. From what you say such a move might be timely. Regards Peter, G3LDO > There is nothing inherently wrong with .doc but .odt tends to be the > native default in Open Office and Libre Office running with the Linux > distros on my machines. Being a Linux and open source fan I like to do > my bit to promote alternatives. > > He who would be obeyed has plans to require PC manufacturers to > implement UEFI secure boot on certified Windows 8 machines. This could > if implemented result in buyers being prevented from installing or dual > booting other OS's. How would you like to be prevented from choosing > which brand of tyre you fit on your car? Or, perhaps, even which brand > of juice you put in your tank. Ultimately one might be unable to run > uncertified experimental software on a Microsoft proprietary OS. Sorry, > Andy but it's a 'freedom' thing that some of us oldies who wore duffel > coats in the 50's and 60's mumble into our real ales about. > > Anyway, herewith, a fresh attachment in .doc > > p.s The file was slightly smaller in .odt - my gut feeling says smaller > = more efficient ! > > > > > > >