Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1290; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on lipkowski.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.1.3 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by paranoid.lipkowski.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id u6E9w8G4019192 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:58:08 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1bNdHG-0003Zy-4g for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:49:54 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1bNdHF-0003Zo-Rx for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:49:53 +0100 Received: from rgout0404.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk ([65.20.0.217]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1bNdHE-0005Bu-2W for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:49:52 +0100 X-OWM-Source-IP: 31.49.118.231 (GB) X-OWM-Env-Sender: alan.melia@btinternet.com X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=38/50,refid=2.7.2:2016.7.14.81217:17:38.936,ip=31.49.118.231,rules=__HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, MSGID_32HEX_LC, INVALID_MSGID_NO_FQDN, __MSGID_32HEX, __HAS_FROM, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL_FROM, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __REFERENCES, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, __URI_WITH_PATH, __FRAUD_BODY_WEBMAIL, __URI_NO_WWW, __CP_URI_IN_BODY, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE, __URI_IN_BODY, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_1800_1899, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, __URI_NS, SXL_IP_DYNAMIC[231.118.49.31.fur], HTML_00_01, HTML_00_10, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL, __OUTLOOK_MUA, __SINGLE_URI_TEXT, SINGLE_URI_IN_BODY, __PHISH_SPEAR_STRUCTURE_1, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK, REFERENCES, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS, NO_URI_HTTPS, MSG_THREAD, LEGITIMATE_NEGATE Received: from gnat (31.49.118.231) by rgout04.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk (8.6.122.06) (authenticated as alan.melia@btinternet.com) id 578635B50020F346 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:49:48 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=btcpcloud; t=1468489792; bh=BmO86e9mpxakXI9WQEARADGnUpo6qtKKxWW2A6R8Xrk=; h=Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:X-Mailer; b=wWxv9GRp41V0Ol7c/dQ1iixiBnvF/w52FSCZocQdns7+s5jLse3TPVU/5/EKYVNS1C2yHLsyVCn1mM53v9oRVXlyV0W2ZLFSXE7BY49v36khP5Vh9llL5mFVj67SqkH50Qvd1v7pAJINASOkjYeicq61AgI4RBqoaqFvvry44Ng= Message-ID: <2213E01E87BB403BB8D4728B7BE96CA2@gnat> From: "Alan Melia" To: References: <699007789.4519784.1468489028737.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <699007789.4519784.1468489028737.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:49:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Scan-Signature: ead411ce91f9601ce3974c7575797436 Subject: Re: LF: SAQ statistics Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 10.1.3.11 Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 8373 Pete re not getting your postings back from Blacksheep......have you checked in the Spam folder in your webmail?? Yahoo regards mail sent to self as spam !! Alan G3NYK ----- Original Message ----- From: "M0FMT" To: Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 10:37 AM Subject: Re: LF: SAQ statistics Hi all I am still not getting my own mails back from Blacksheep almost as perplexing as why the DL listenership of SAQ is so much higher than elsewhere. Population of Radio Amateurs and the proximity of DL land to SM no doubt contributes, but the difference is so large. It has been consistently large over many years. It could be that the listenership in G land is higher but don't report in.... a bit unlikely. Many thanks for the suggestions. Oh apologies for highlighting such a boring topic. 73 es GL Pete M0FMT GQRP#15097.in IO91UX -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 13/7/16, Andy Talbot wrote: Subject: Re: LF: SAQ statistics To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Wednesday, 13 July, 2016, 19:47 And because it's chirpy CW and we've all moved on from that by now.Been there, done that Andy G4JNT On 13 July 2016 at 19:30, Chris wrote: Probably because it's so easy and we've done it many times before? G4AYT. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:54 PM Subject: Re: LF: SAQ statistics Hi, On 13.07.2016 12:02, M0FMT wrote: ... Why is there such a high number of DLs receiving SAQ at 116 ? Why is there such a low number of *reports* from UK receiving SAQ ? Peter PS: http://lf-radio.de/misc/SAQ/SAQ_1998.wav