Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mp01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id A9478380000C7; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:20:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TvwsP-0007Yd-Gp for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:19:57 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TvwsP-0007YU-4m for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:19:57 +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 1TvwsM-0005kZ-2H for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:19:56 +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 r0HLJr61004014 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:19:53 +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 r0HLJrld028333 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:19:53 +0100 Message-ID: <50F86AF4.3090300@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:19:48 +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-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: Tnx Mauro, Seems to work on your side. I was experimenting on MF some time ago, using WSPR2.0 and WSPR-X to the same time. The SNR reports were didn't differ more than 1 dB. [...] 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: 59677119386dcf9f1872cb454dc1331d Subject: Re: LF: WSPR-15 DK7FC decoded 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: 3039ac1dc14550f86b352284 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Tnx Mauro, Seems to work on your side. I was experimenting on MF some time ago, using WSPR2.0 and WSPR-X to the same time. The SNR reports were didn't differ more than 1 dB. 73, Stefan Am 17.01.2013 21:59, schrieb IK1WVQ Mauro: > HI, > > 2030 -26 0.1 0.137608 0 DK7FC JN49 30 > > 73 de Mauro IK1WVQ >