Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dg02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 6951E380000BD; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:09:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1SlJtB-0004cn-4a for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 14:08:33 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1SlJtA-0004ce-OS for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 14:08:32 +0100 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.210.211]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SlJt9-0003rf-0Q for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 14:08:31 +0100 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q61D8UPM028726 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 15:08:30 +0200 Received: from [129.206.22.206] (pc206.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.22.206]) by freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.2) with ESMTP id q61D8Upa026791 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 15:08:30 +0200 Message-ID: <4FF04B5A.1020806@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 15:06:34 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Sch=E4fer?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <001401cd5789$8dce5c60$8d01a8c0@JAYDELL> In-Reply-To: <001401cd5789$8dce5c60$8d01a8c0@JAYDELL> X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) 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 Jay, Interesting. Were the signal levels higher in the afternoon? Or was the noise lower? Or even both? 73, Stefan/DK7FC [...] Content analysis details: (-2.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust [129.206.210.211 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 87966b345956c8ef3389b993f6a18f4e Subject: Re: LF: SAQ reception in CT 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=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: 0:2:420866880:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d410a4ff04c014664 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi Jay, Interesting. Were the signal levels higher in the afternoon? Or was the noise lower? Or even both? 73, Stefan/DK7FC Am 01.07.2012 15:00, schrieb jrusgrove@comcast.net: > Reception of July 1, 2012 1200 UTC session was better than the 0900 > UTC although not as good as 'all time' best reception of SAQ during > the 2nd session of the July 2011 event. > > MP3 from this morning's 2nd session pre message 'test and tune' at : > http://www.w1vd.com/SAQ070112.mp3 . > > Setup: modified AMRAD e probe > audio LNA > Delta 44 sound card > > Spectrum Laboratory software > > > Jay W1VD WD2XNS WE2XGR/2