Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-df03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id F18A4380000A9; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:25:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TiVRx-0006gP-Oe for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:25:05 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TiVRx-0006gG-CJ for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:25:05 +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 1TiVRv-0002lR-OM for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:25:04 +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 qBBJOg4m018919 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:24:42 +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 qBBJOgL6001580 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:24:42 +0100 Message-ID: <50C78875.5050005@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:24:37 +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 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) 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: Toni, I guess that was you, answering to my call in CW? Sorry, i didn't listen to the band in that moment. The peak hold graph also indicates that the S/N was to low for CW reception. This must have to do with some new QRM in the background. The QRM interacts with the strength of HGA22. That's why expect that i will have much better LF reception with my new RX concept which is on the plan since a longer time. However i'm waiting for the mixer (SBL-3) from the US since several weeks. Hopefully soon... [...] Content analysis details: (-0.7 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] -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: aee9e5eeb35c86f052d502ac97832558 Subject: LF: HB9ASB 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: 3039ac1d40d750c788bc5819 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Toni, I guess that was you, answering to my call in CW? Sorry, i didn't listen to the band in that moment. The peak hold graph also indicates that the S/N was to low for CW reception. This must have to do with some new QRM in the background. The QRM interacts with the strength of HGA22. That's why expect that i will have much better LF reception with my new RX concept which is on the plan since a longer time. However i'm waiting for the mixer (SBL-3) from the US since several weeks. Hopefully soon... 73, Stefan/DK7FC