Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-dc01.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id 02067380000AA; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:25:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1UHcK1-00056C-LT for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:50:01 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1UHcK1-000562-66 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:50:01 +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 1UHcJy-0002Ax-NY for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:50:00 +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 r2IFncCC000866 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:49:38 +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 r2IFncBm020678 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:49:38 +0100 Message-ID: <5147378C.9000103@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:49:32 +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: <51473057.7050307@broadpark.no> <514732B6.5070003@broadpark.no> In-Reply-To: <514732B6.5070003@broadpark.no> X-Spam-Score: -3.2 (---) 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: Steinar, See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navtex#Technical_Information However some of the experts may want to add further informations. I would like to know them as well :-) [...] Content analysis details: (-3.2 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] -2.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: 0a4643e586472c13187d293ec5d096c2 Subject: Re: LF: NAVTEX vs AMTOR-FEC 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: 3039ac1d408151473fe76cf3 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : temperror Steinar, See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navtex#Technical_Information However some of the experts may want to add further informations. I would like to know them as well :-) 73, Stefan/DK7FC Am 18.03.2013 16:28, schrieb Steinar Aanesland: > Hummmmm, This went wrong. It was meant to be a question: > > What is the advantage of NAVTEX over AMTOR-FEC? > > > LA5VNA Steinar > loc:JO59jq > > > Den 18.03.2013 16:18, skrev Steinar Aanesland: > >> Hi all >> >> The advantage of NAVTEX over AMTOR-FEC >> >> >