Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.96.198 with SMTP id du6csp36763igb; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 07:58:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.15.63.142 with SMTP id m14mr399372eex.106.1382021906457; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 07:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c49si66066547eeg.117.1969.12.31.16.00.00; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 07:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 195.171.43.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1VWp12-00022R-4U for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:57:32 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1VWp11-00022B-Nj for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:57:31 +0100 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 1VWp10-0003rW-5r for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:57:30 +0100 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 r9HEvTpb003266 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:57:29 +0200 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 r9HEvSXO027747 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:57:29 +0200 Message-ID: <525FFAD3.2000406@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:57:23 +0200 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: <000701cecb29$d06ee7f0$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> <525FCC72.3080506@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <002001cecb35$90568ea0$6d01a8c0@DELL4> <525FFA57.1020001@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> In-Reply-To: <525FFA57.1020001@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de id r9HEvTpb003266 X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) 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: PS: Jay, Markus, What is the S/N performance of OPDS compared to WSPR-15 (apart from the fact that the callsigns must be known in advance and that there is less information into one sequence) ?? 73, Stefan [...] Content analysis details: (-2.7 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] -0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Scan-Signature: c1f72e5acb1277e013f90c915ad7ad68 Subject: Re: LF: T/A OPDS DK7FC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3031 PS: Jay, Markus, What is the S/N performance of OPDS compared to WSPR-15 (apart from the=20 fact that the callsigns must be known in advance and that there is less=20 information into one sequence) ?? 73, Stefan Am 17.10.2013 16:55, schrieb Stefan Sch=E4fer: > Jay, > > Am 17.10.2013 14:36, schrieb jrusgrove@comcast.net: >> >> Several stations on this end are now set up to receive OP Deep Search=20 >> ... including Garry K3SIW in IL. Being that far inland is quite a=20 >> disadvantage for T/A signal reception compared to 'coastal' stations. > Garry got several WSPR-15 decodes of me last season, so i think he=20 > could make it in OPDS as well. >> >> On my end I'm interested to see if it's possible to roll back the=20 >> earliest T/A reception times (current best of about 2045Z mid=20 >> season). There are probably other 'unknowns' waiting to be discovered=20 >> along the way ;~) . > OK, i can give it a try. Not sure if i can make it today arround 20=20 > UTC but i will try. > Am i already included in the OPDS list as a possible station? > > 73, Stefan/DK7FC