Delivered-To: daveyxm@virginmedia.com Received: by 10.50.142.105 with SMTP id rv9csp191967igb; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:10:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.163.100 with SMTP id yh4mr72034504pbb.122.1404324647785; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com. [195.171.43.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id xa8si21512584pab.3.2014.07.02.11.10.46 for ; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:10:47 -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=@comcast.net; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=comcast.net Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1X2OcN-0007mh-Fj for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 18:46:51 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1X2OcN-0007mY-12 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 18:46:51 +0100 Received: from qmta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.59.227]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1X2OcJ-0008N1-W6 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 18:46:49 +0100 Received: from omta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.43]) by qmta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id MQUf1o0020vyq2s5CVmmrC; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 17:46:46 +0000 Received: from DELL4 ([71.234.119.9]) by omta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id MVml1o00c0CFS1j3RVml6C; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 17:46:46 +0000 X-DKIM-Result: Domain=comcast.net Result=Signature OK Message-ID: <008d01cf961d$97a11cd0$6d01a8c0@DELL4> From: To: References: <001101cf9605$643c25a0$6401a8c0@JAYDELL> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 13:46:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1404323206; bh=lWeK6cLZb2OLy7EaFGlaz96ooxgFlmEa4SriOJaC77Q=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=Uxhi16+Dxg9OvYHLq5217B7+CsD34UzWLnevXkn+8EAgcSbH38+zn8DJcp59suNsP 55Rm8hwfVsPF30lVPcXD5t7lpvbe95temrPWaZJATax6e486gfLZcB2/UcPbEjLAwy XgFi3PtG61i+5uhSB3JWqXRnLLujrsm3iQdvkJVA+I9vRZbgjNc7oGWg1H7ec/U++8 xAbgtdfyBiGKbsszSlC9GRWyCDD2LfgR1X54CWa81PvKDLSvvlfDkQb3O9CdUGoLEH 6wFE7ah+tu/bSHWKBY62W3IXPVC4lB+SGQfZ+GNwPbWj8AXL90nhRJcpYmaRNijgL9 dN+292OegQAFA== X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) 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: Laura > Compared to transmissions in the past speed control is worse these days. Noticed that today and last weekend. I didn't make a close check of the frequency but they 'seemed' a bit high. During key down, as the frequency went lower, the signal strength seemed to increase slightly. Hard to say how much with the weak signal level and static. Wonder if you noticed that as well? [...] Content analysis details: (0.2 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [76.96.59.227 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.2 STOX_REPLY_TYPE STOX_REPLY_TYPE 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (jrusgrove[at]comcast.net) -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -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: 4e3b1488273adbbe9757d6bdd5adf219 Subject: Re: LF: SAQ 'extra transmission' in CT Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original 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=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME 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 Laura > Compared to transmissions in the past speed control is worse these days. Noticed that today and last weekend. I didn't make a close check of the frequency but they 'seemed' a bit high. During key down, as the frequency went lower, the signal strength seemed to increase slightly. Hard to say how much with the weak signal level and static. Wonder if you noticed that as well? Jay ----- Original Message ----- From: "LZ" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 12:43 PM Subject: Aw: LF: SAQ 'extra transmission' in CT Hi Jay, You wrote: > July 2, 2014 reception was slightly down from 'normal' and about on par with the Jun 29 2014 > transmission last weekend. A short .mp3 of the tuneup session with the ID curiously sent as QAS! Confirmed; supposing an unknown q-code primarily (°?°) Compared to transmissions in the past speed control is worse these days. Laura Sent from my Goldschmidt-Alternator