Return-Path: X-Spam-DCC: paranoid 1102; 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=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, HTML_50_60,HTML_MESSAGE,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 u6DIpl9N002591 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 20:51:47 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1bNPCP-0002qI-H3 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19:47:57 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1bNPCP-0002q9-4q for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19:47:57 +0100 Received: from mail-it0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::231]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1bNPCM-0002Hv-QA for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19:47:56 +0100 Received: by mail-it0-x231.google.com with SMTP id f6so28294722ith.1 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:47:54 -0700 (PDT) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=gmail.com Result=Good and Known Domain DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=bUVUPItxKK+ifzimj1oe29pdbiY38TnwSfKBXA+CwKs=; b=Ztp80BfSR/DMslkJ4qNPJl1rI7HgcAwlUlio4xp9Zyy3rPOdSPz/NDnVWZpKUPcNnM y9ONkRv+fDMg1mmi1Cgp7AffEcPQqCBEXt+73yeijNu3RKtuGWUkB42SDHHnYAOLwHPU UL2fyEmaQu4s4HYkK8fJBL8BogaCfnNfapeNYnWTnxiyX8QTD30W0aTENGIghvY01lx8 ajR9TmHkQLnf6cNnYG6GadReMaCn88GAZFt5iCBKPc3B86aITm/n32QHaJ/zkcHIYLQC IpxjK8LuehYLPxeUFYFoEYmbQ+MoKEK7A1ZeZDYd8WrIghp+FWjbG+Bath5NM/WCEXUO bP9A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=bUVUPItxKK+ifzimj1oe29pdbiY38TnwSfKBXA+CwKs=; b=CT9iWu/aARXyJw1sk0TFx9DFJJG9JFQUEAxvUP9FLSrxz2OOq7PJRs82U3/WeO8sZ4 wKzNy05Rrp9FRuu5SK/IbWgqZG5T/BaDO3BijHIblmTyYxJTm5NR/NrLh4pydFVfITIO NjGmW+98cQLnvJR+dcmyuV3cAuOyuDRni6WcK+60N+96kgqtNvSNHrvrpcKuj1USSKx/ 3GzH9uXs5w/KXMjiIRg5bdAyMTHfjtSN5gt1lbtdoCI8cRQx19ZdLTdgMAW37WejIMKw FOVcL+sG6KR+/MRWYJXqw1KRQWc7SWIU2pIZH58n0nNxK4sNn0kO4GBgr5DyesXlMFgB ETmA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKa4kfOXnP4/GThI2GCMkaH2P3yTg5PUm37VtiM2MQH8Vqd6uXXZiGPpb5/UOOAmVXZ6Rv+Hr50w3xm7g== X-Received: by 10.36.17.131 with SMTP id 125mr11241907itf.94.1468435672145; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:47:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.29.79 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:47:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <36495CD82FE74C48B2EAC34BF1309157@IBM7FFA209F07C> References: <178286273.1256395.1468404155372.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <178286273.1256395.1468404155372.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <57868071.6010801@df3lp.de> <36495CD82FE74C48B2EAC34BF1309157@IBM7FFA209F07C> From: Andy Talbot Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19:47:51 +0100 Message-ID: To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Scan-Signature: 0b36c952c26be93e626fe2fa1c93657f Subject: Re: LF: SAQ statistics Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114452e29f452b053788d252 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: 8371 --001a114452e29f452b053788d252 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 >> >> > --001a114452e29f452b053788d252 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
And because it's chirpy CW and we've all moved on = from that by now.
Been there, done that

Andy = =C2=A0G4JNT

On 13 July 2016 at 19:30, Chris <c.ashby435@btinternet.com> wrote:
Probably because it&= #39;s so easy and we've done it many times before?
G4AYT.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter" <pws@df3lp.de>
To: <r= sgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
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



--001a114452e29f452b053788d252--