Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-md01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 0536A38000097; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:33:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TXC6n-0004MN-LK for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:32:29 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TXC6n-0004MA-8k for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:32:29 +0000 Received: from mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.47]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TXC6l-0008Q5-Oj for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:32:28 +0000 Received: from aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20121110143226.KUFN10247.mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com>; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:32:26 +0000 Received: from [192.168.2.2] (really [82.5.252.56]) by aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.3.00.04.00 201-2196-133-20080908) with ESMTP id <20121110143226.PVVD22970.aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@[192.168.2.2]>; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:32:26 +0000 From: "Mike Dennison" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:32:23 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: rsgb_lf_group@yahoogroups.co.uk Message-ID: <509E6577.27035.10C1B7F@mike.dennison.ntlworld.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41) Content-description: Mail message body X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=GaEGOwq9FwezmTggA+b6yC6zDZF2HYaK6RN/tSqdnVA= c=1 sm=0 a=uObrxnre4hsA:10 a=9YlaCzn6_68A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=6S8yd7S-oa2w9WHRgKEA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117 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: I notice by zooming in on the waterfall display (Pixel = 1) that, despite my computer clock being synchronised with a time server, the transmissions seem to start about one second before the waterfall line indicating the start of the time period, and end a few seconds before the next line. [...] 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 [81.103.221.47 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Scan-Signature: 925300287489a1d7272e62b121c112aa Subject: LF: WSJT-X timing Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII 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-sid: 3039ac1d6055509e65a34c7a X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none I notice by zooming in on the waterfall display (Pixel = 1) that, despite my computer clock being synchronised with a time server, the transmissions seem to start about one second before the waterfall line indicating the start of the time period, and end a few seconds before the next line. Do others see this, or is there space before and after the transmission on your waterfall? Is this a clue to my unreliable reception (ie that my receive setup is slightly behind the transmitted signals)? MIke, G3XDV