Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mc02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 0E11638000093; Sat, 8 Sep 2012 18:23:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TATQj-0001pN-LG for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 08 Sep 2012 23:23:09 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TATQj-0001pE-6x for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 08 Sep 2012 23:23:09 +0100 Received: from mail-wg0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TATQg-0006ii-Vc for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 08 Sep 2012 23:23:08 +0100 Received: by wgbfa7 with SMTP id fa7so483978wgb.28 for ; Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:23:05 -0700 (PDT) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=gmail.com Result=Good and Known Domain DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3nN78I2cOVxSO3WmtQnFnl/mTSVDpS1Ylh4zcsy6Pqw=; b=Q7ds5ZpvApaYyjvuWzldUoQ6MqNZ6caV8iJkMV1vc9qrymZNk+a0Q/K+KbiOwmMLEr 0ktqfIGpRE2vaxskdUdfkzTbJ3zDfHIfMfmUawqvftj+7JCJdLLT2fpuMQvOdLdLDlnf hHtCaG3xYGOoC/q6JiZStHUX0toNc+L4HbZtYvOXQR5dWa0kxYNbgzSKQlo4pUi2mO9S I6surfE60naK2//0mF9CmYhgk5XMlq6agiOoXJl8L4C7QPyajJh7LGNcYCAGbbIlCdXi CUfSTUklryQsDoC8dB8uAdH2dLVb7dzffM5ac8Z4On5Fn48u/vL3tRxwwql1rjiGQS9H bXng== Received: by 10.180.94.164 with SMTP id dd4mr6863192wib.1.1347142985389; Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.21.117] ([146.90.222.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o2sm11038154wiz.11.2012.09.08.15.23.03 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:23:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <504BC546.2000105@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2012 23:23:02 +0100 From: JohnPumford-Green User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <12fe8.4c562f1.3d7d1434@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <12fe8.4c562f1.3d7d1434@aol.com> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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: On 08/09/2012 22:35, > Mal, don't be so harsh with them. These guys are obviously new to MF and > they have a real problem handling a big vertical (ex BC stn "SWF"). I had a > qso with the guy on 80m and he told me they have QRM > S9. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [74.125.82.47 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gm4slv[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 0a4643e586472c13187d293ec5d096c2 Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Re: DK0SWF antenna Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR 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-AUTHENTICATION: mtain-mc02.r1000.mx.aol.com ; domain : gmail.com DKIM : pass x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d604a504bc57c2d52 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none On 08/09/2012 22:35, KKorn42@aol.com wrote: > Mal, don't be so harsh with them. These guys are obviously new to MF and > they have a real problem handling a big vertical (ex BC stn "SWF"). I had a > qso with the guy on 80m and he told me they have QRM > S9. Klaus, Mal et al, Strong signals here from DK0SWF on 472.4kHz in Shetland, IP90gg Calling CQ ad infinitum, while also 60Hz higher I also copy DF0WD calling CQ too. I assume neither station can hear each other? While I applaud any new MF activity, I wonder why, if DK0SWF are unable to receive efficiently on their antenna, they call CQ? Surely if this is a "one time" opportunity to transmit from "SWF" and reception is impossible they could do something else with the time on the air. A WSPR transmission for the same length of time would gather much more usefuly information than calling CQ with no hope of hearing any replies? John GM4SLV IP90gg Shetland Isles