Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mi01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 92B183800011E; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:54:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UHbzy-0004yE-A7 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:29:18 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UHbzx-0004y5-Ty for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:29:17 +0000 Received: from eterpe-smout.broadpark.no ([80.202.8.16]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1UHbzw-00024X-DC for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:29:16 +0000 MIME-version: 1.0 Received: from ignis-smin.broadpark.no ([80.202.8.11]) by eterpe-smout.broadpark.no (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-27.01(7.0.4.27.0) 64bit (built Aug 30 2012)) with ESMTP id <0MJV005UM4C73I50@eterpe-smout.broadpark.no> for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:28:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([84.48.126.39]) by ignis-smin.broadpark.no (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-27.01(7.0.4.27.0) 64bit (built Aug 30 2012)) with ESMTPA id <0MJV003AZ4C6IOE0@ignis-smin.broadpark.no> for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:28:55 +0100 (CET) Message-id: <514732B6.5070003@broadpark.no> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:28:54 +0100 From: Steinar Aanesland User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <51473057.7050307@broadpark.no> In-reply-to: <51473057.7050307@broadpark.no> X-Spam-Score: -3.2 (---) 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: Hummmmm, This went wrong. It was meant to be a question: What is the advantage of NAVTEX over AMTOR-FEC? LA5VNA Steinar loc:JO59jq [...] Content analysis details: (-3.2 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [80.202.8.16 listed in list.dnswl.org] -2.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 4ad5f3f1a9241b934aaa5d0e23c9dc57 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Subject: Re: LF: NAVTEX vs AMTOR-FEC X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=UPPERCASE_25_50 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: 3039ac1d7b89514738b43841 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hummmmm, This went wrong. It was meant to be a question: What is the advantage of NAVTEX over AMTOR-FEC? LA5VNA Steinar loc:JO59jq Den 18.03.2013 16:18, skrev Steinar Aanesland: > Hi all > > The advantage of NAVTEX over AMTOR-FEC >