Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mc04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 4922D380000A5; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:09:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TSyS2-0003YM-Uy for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:08:58 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TSyS2-0003YD-IC for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:08:58 +0000 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 1TSyS0-0003ns-Re for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:08:57 +0000 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 q9TN8u92032309 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:08:56 +0100 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 q9TN8tLQ018277 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:08:55 +0100 Message-ID: <508F0C80.7040806@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:08:48 +0100 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: In-Reply-To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de id q9TN8u92032309 X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) 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: Thanks Joe, OK, i go to JT9-5 now. BTW the ghost signal is only visible in JT9-1 here. In JT9-2 there is a well visible JT9-2 signal in the slots between my transmission on 137.46 kHz. But no decode :-( Is someone transmitting on that QRG? The signal is not visible on the DF6NM grabber... [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 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] -0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 086f3faad0220c9ae57a7913e711a86d Subject: Re: LF: 2200m report Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 3039ac1d604c508f0caf1cfa X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Thanks Joe, OK, i go to JT9-5 now. BTW the ghost signal is only visible in JT9-1 here. In JT9-2 there is a=20 well visible JT9-2 signal in the slots between my transmission on 137.46=20 kHz. But no decode :-( Is someone transmitting on that QRG? The signal is not visible on the=20 DF6NM grabber... 73, Stefan Am 29.10.2012 23:47, schrieb Joe: > First decode > > 2244 10 -1 0.4 1431.05 0.00 I HAVE A CAT > > > 73 Joe > =20 > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] Im Auftrag von Stefan Sch=E4= fer > Gesendet: Montag, 29. Oktober 2012 23:40 > An: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Betreff: Re: LF: 2200m report > > [...] > So the program seems to work RX wise now from my side. I meant TX wise.