Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.142.105 with SMTP id rv9csp369422igb; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:28:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.62.167 with SMTP id z7mr12469319wjr.112.1403731732375; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id cq8si8981767wib.49.2014.06.25.14.28.51 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: none (google.com: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=195.171.43.25; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) smtp.mail=owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; dkim=pass header.i=@googlemail.com Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Wzue9-0006Zt-Fe for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 22:22:25 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Wzue9-0006Zk-7H for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 22:22:25 +0100 Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <73dk7fc@googlemail.com>) id 1Wzue7-0000zW-Ed for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 22:22:24 +0100 Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id r20so3361796wiv.10 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:22:22 -0700 (PDT) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=googlemail.com Result=Good and Known Domain DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XsOkx4IeRIVssKexzl8isxOZmzP3CIxhjXWsE8dSgc0=; b=VmUXBQHVyx5wN1Nnujd1VeTnALfN0a67+XKg8pQtx9WaFAxdy6RAzww0i4HwPc3XZV hCFyoS0qSFBig2+qsBLBHh0Qpzll4BGSJAMux2MUv+/WHfYXVqFnv60qWoSl95dZWQWi gDW5huxx+A9ioK0TJ0818cbtNABYGMtkvxF5y9/VLtqCov7IaQbpK0DVhSb34lTvmTID BaQfqHjpeENqGNdMZp6pKfdxFu9iSY4nHN9SB2QamNdHLuXi7SwaYAJRHtuzgmqUD2k3 6aANWMYrRBfHsvDnv74xMVhI4DgJp5Np/yDNxcyjJ19Vrsl7glGNiaWUURR1ip51ueIe Ds2g== X-Received: by 10.180.89.233 with SMTP id br9mr13223636wib.14.1403731342242; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:22:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [129.206.22.206] (pc206.iup.uni-heidelberg.de. [129.206.22.206]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 19sm9903713wjz.3.2014.06.25.14.22.21 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:22:21 -0700 (PDT) From: DK7FC <73dk7fc@googlemail.com> X-Google-Original-From: DK7FC <73dk7fc@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53AB3D8C.8060407@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 23:22:20 +0200 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: <3E2191D6995647D48932529876C7636C@gnat> In-Reply-To: <3E2191D6995647D48932529876C7636C@gnat> 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: Am 25.06.2014 22:55, schrieb Alan Melia: > It is interesting that there does seem to be a suggestion that 137 > holds up better in summer than 472.......have I read that correctly, > or maybe it was from another poster. I was not able to do the same > sort of tests for 472. > > Good work > Alan > G3NYK [...] 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 [209.85.212.177 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (73dk7fc[at]googlemail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 87966b345956c8ef3389b993f6a18f4e Subject: Re: LF: Re: RE: Summer Solstice Test report 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=0.3 required=5.0 tests=FROM_HAS_MIXED_NUMS 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 Am 25.06.2014 22:55, schrieb Alan Melia: > It is interesting that there does seem to be a suggestion that 137 > holds up better in summer than 472.......have I read that correctly, > or maybe it was from another poster. I was not able to do the same > sort of tests for 472. > > Good work > Alan > G3NYK Hi Alan. Probably a question of what we're discussing about, ground wave or sky wave, or better, daytime or night time. In summer, there is not much area in darkness and so, if you can find a day without much QRN/lightnings there may be less noise. But that rather counts for a distance < 2500 km i guess. 73, Stefan