Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-db03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 8E86B38000085; Sat, 8 Sep 2012 21:35:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TAWPy-0003C8-Kh for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 02:34:34 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TAWPy-0003Bz-2p for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 02:34:34 +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 1TAWPw-0007K7-GP for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 02:34:32 +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 q891YV6N006436 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 03:34:32 +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 q891YVeJ022127 for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 03:34:31 +0200 Message-ID: <504BF16A.9060109@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 03:31:22 +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: <12fe8.4c562f1.3d7d1434@aol.com> <504BC546.2000105@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <504BC546.2000105@gmail.com> 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: MF, Maybe they hope that a strong local station will answer the CQ call so they can at least do a few local QSOs? Probably it is a new experience for them and they didn't expect RX problems with such a proffessional antenna. Maybe a 30 dB attenuator would help them? Or the RX is completely overloaded, if they have QRM at S9... I find one can be happy to have an amateur generated MF signal which is nicely detectable and suitable for propagation and receive antenna tests even on far distant stations. And it is nice to see that there are some OMs who do the effort to use such a big antenna, including all the organisation. No need to complain about their poor RX situation. It is their first test and they will surely learn and make it better in the next test. [...] 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 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 0b2d339ae1d48966556dfb6ad64e2bce 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=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: 3039ac1d4057504bf25d0f13 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none MF, Maybe they hope that a strong local station will answer the CQ call so they can at least do a few local QSOs? Probably it is a new experience for them and they didn't expect RX problems with such a proffessional antenna. Maybe a 30 dB attenuator would help them? Or the RX is completely overloaded, if they have QRM at S9... I find one can be happy to have an amateur generated MF signal which is nicely detectable and suitable for propagation and receive antenna tests even on far distant stations. And it is nice to see that there are some OMs who do the effort to use such a big antenna, including all the organisation. No need to complain about their poor RX situation. It is their first test and they will surely learn and make it better in the next test. 73, Stefan