Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.237.98 with SMTP id vb2csp327449igc; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:16:56 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.37.162 with SMTP id z2mr5138354wij.51.1390429015480; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:16:55 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id lo8si7886022wic.68.2014.01.22.14.16.54 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:16:55 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; dkim=pass header.i=@mx.aol.com Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1W65kr-0006OV-9L for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:54:37 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1W65kq-0006OM-Qj for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:54:36 +0000 Received: from omr-d09.mx.aol.com ([205.188.108.133]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1W65ko-0005wi-UC for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:54:35 +0000 Received: from mtaout-mbc02.mx.aol.com (mtaout-mbc02.mx.aol.com [172.26.221.142]) by omr-d09.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id EC1C6701F95C0 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:54:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from White (95-91-238-155-dynip.superkabel.de [95.91.238.155]) by mtaout-mbc02.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPA id 26619380000B9 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:54:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <6E7ABFEC60D644ABAADC70A71342CE06@White> From: "Markus Vester" To: References: <5389007EB2DA43F3B37E3CEB7069364B@AGB> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:54:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 12.0.1606 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V12.0.1606 x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1390427671; bh=mhnSuhPCAk2YXPeHUUrPQZV3DZOT3kiyDKNOYfQVhXQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=BlgcYmBmIxUP3FCmL6iOPqCQjHD9H0C9HGfbGyVagFQ/O3ZH1AfBITNnWUxM+uTHZ 59sAlPv+zGyrCt0Zol2SLC6ovhWQ8r11bFqzgn4aQQ4226fw3nDMWuAJLcGf0Zt4Ag PfAOR2mOyUgoRxrPkR14VthZw9XQ/L6DhOr1Ns60= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1add8e52e03e154eb2 X-AOL-IP: 95.91.238.155 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 Graham, not sure whether there is currently anything near "final" in that matter. It's more of an ad-hoc thing: a few of grabbers have been set around that frequency, and a couple of stations have made low-power transmissions. For me, 8270 is not really optimal because it's close to 8267.7 with a lot of 16.67 Hz related QRM, certainly worse than good old 8970 was. We'll also want to find out what sort of QRM future receivers eg in America will have to deal with. [...] Content analysis details: (-0.6 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [205.188.108.133 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (markusvester[at]aol.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 0cdfd8d5ce44f1724c623c4ac9f44df6 Subject: Re: LF: 8270 Final resting place ?? Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01CF17C4.E65E43C0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE, MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME 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 Dies ist eine mehrteilige Nachricht im MIME-Format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01CF17C4.E65E43C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Graham, not sure whether there is currently anything near "final" in that = matter. It's more of an ad-hoc thing: a few of grabbers have been set = around that frequency, and a couple of stations have made low-power = transmissions. For me, 8270 is not really optimal because it's close to = 8267.7 with a lot of 16.67 Hz related QRM, certainly worse than good old = 8970 was. We'll also want to find out what sort of QRM future receivers = eg in America will have to deal with. So my suggestion is yes, stay around there for the time being, but be = prepared to move somewhere else if that will turn out better. It surely = wouldn't be a good idea to ask Jos=E9 Ros to hardcode it into his = software ;-) All the best, Markus (DF6NM) =20 From: Graham=20 Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:20 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: LF: 8270 Final resting place ?? 8270 Final resting place ?? All - Is 8270Hz the final resting place for audio-band = experiments ? , is this qrg suitable WW ?=20 Tnx -Graham G0NBD ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01CF17C4.E65E43C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Graham,
 
not sure whether there = is currently anything=20 near "final" in that matter. It's more of an ad-hoc = thing: a few=20 of grabbers have been set around that frequency, and a couple = of=20 stations have made low-power transmissions. For me, 8270 is not = really=20 optimal because it's close to 8267.7 with a lot of 16.67 Hz related QRM, = certainly worse than good old 8970 was. We'll also want to find out what = sort of=20 QRM future receivers eg in America will have to deal with.
 
So my suggestion is yes, stay around = there for the=20 time being, but be prepared to move somewhere else if that will turn out = better.=20 It surely wouldn't be a good idea to ask Jos=E9 Ros to = hardcode it into=20 his software ;-)
 
All the best,
Markus (DF6NM)

 
From: Graham
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:20 PM
Subject: LF: 8270 Final resting place ??

8270  Final  resting  place ??
 
All -   Is  8270Hz   the  final =20 resting  place  for  audio-band   = experiments ? ,=20 is this   qrg  suitable   WW ?
 
Tnx -Graham
G0NBD
 
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01CF17C4.E65E43C0--