Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-de02.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 2BE7B380000DC; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:42:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TYPAo-0006Og-UZ for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:41:38 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TYPAo-0006OX-HV for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:41:38 +0000 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de ([129.206.100.212]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TYPAn-00014h-0f for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:41:37 +0000 Received: from freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de (freitag.iup.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.29.204]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id qADMfaSR000935 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:41:36 +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 qADMfZPS007796 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:41:35 +0100 Message-ID: <50A2CC9A.8090201@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:41:30 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-15?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: <50A2C13C.80500@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <50A2C6E6.7050303@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <50A2C928.2010509@gmx.de> <50A2CC5A.8020604@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <50A2CC5A.8020604@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> X-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/) 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: > Hi Tobias, > > Am 13.11.2012 23:26, schrieb Tobias DG3LV: >> [...] >> >> I do not have timing problems at WSJT-X despite my SDR has long >> latencies. > Yes, many users have no timing problems in the latest JT9 versions but > there are still many users left, who do have timing problems! In WSPR, > no one has timing problems, as long as a time server program is used. > I never ever observed timing problems in WSPR... Obviously the decoder > is very critical against a time delay. This seems not to be relatives > by the mode (1,2,5,10,30). > For example i saw several non decodes at UA0SNV, having 10 sync points > and realistic SNR showings but no text was displayed. However there > was one decode showing my message. This is the current situation... > > 73, Stefan/DK7FC [...] Content analysis details: (-0.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [129.206.100.212 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.2 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 4ead635eadbaebfaa92cfec77deb715d Subject: LF: Re: JT9-2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; 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: 3039ac1d40ca50a2ccc83222 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none > Hi Tobias, > > Am 13.11.2012 23:26, schrieb Tobias DG3LV: >> [...] >> >> I do not have timing problems at WSJT-X despite my SDR has long >> latencies. > Yes, many users have no timing problems in the latest JT9 versions but > there are still many users left, who do have timing problems! In WSPR, > no one has timing problems, as long as a time server program is used. > I never ever observed timing problems in WSPR... Obviously the decoder > is very critical against a time delay. This seems not to be relatives > by the mode (1,2,5,10,30). > For example i saw several non decodes at UA0SNV, having 10 sync points > and realistic SNR showings but no text was displayed. However there > was one decode showing my message. This is the current situation... > > 73, Stefan/DK7FC