Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-ma04.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 65185380000ED; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:08:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1TxO8W-0006av-Ts for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:38:32 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1TxO8W-0006am-Hf for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:38:32 +0000 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1TxO8R-0004II-C6 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:38:31 +0000 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.31]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MgaEb-1Tadx30cVz-00Ny1d for =?utf-8?q?;?= Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:38:06 +0100 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2013 20:38:05 -0000 Received: from p4FF2CF05.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.2.11]) [79.242.207.5] by mail.gmx.net (mp031) with SMTP; 21 Jan 2013 21:38:05 +0100 X-Authenticated: #38158605 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18ZwutrsGYZUoZa6qIRj5D7Z/aE+F27H2rB+l0ynQ cfllYa5TXrA1kY Message-ID: <50FDA72B.2070808@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:38:03 +0100 From: Hartmut Wolff User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <50FD8A44.5010705@gmx.de> <50FD8D96.80203@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <50FD8D96.80203@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: Am 2013-01-21 19:48, schrieb Stefan Schäfer: > What do you think, which QRSS mode is about as sensitive as WSPR-15, > from your subjective impression? > I would think it must be something arround DFCW-30. But we have to go on > with further tests. At least it is very promising! [...] Content analysis details: (0.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [212.227.17.21 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (h-wolff[at]gmx.de) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Scan-Signature: 1f795a2ee1ecd56682b47ad11969b3d3 Subject: Re: LF: WE2XEB WSPR15 decodes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 3039ac1d600c50fdae637a88 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Am 2013-01-21 19:48, schrieb Stefan Schäfer: > What do you think, which QRSS mode is about as sensitive as WSPR-15, > from your subjective impression? > I would think it must be something arround DFCW-30. But we have to go on > with further tests. At least it is very promising! Hi Stefan, it's difficult to compare QRSS or DFCW with a digital mode. Last night I only copied XGJ in QRSS60 mode. For a real comparison there is to little activity. -- 73 Hartmut www.h-wolff.de Locator: JO52hp