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=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL, HTML_30_40,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 u6E9xjBf019224 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:59:46 +0200 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1bNdJa-0003bq-PR for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:52:18 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1bNdJa-0003bh-ED for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:52:18 +0100 Received: from mail-io0-x229.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1bNdJX-0005Cm-Ua for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:52:17 +0100 Received: by mail-io0-x229.google.com with SMTP id q83so71007350iod.1 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 02:52:15 -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=08bYIdVzD/dwsPmpu9mRMQ8VoWGGv2GnRSMYhxC4MfU=; b=C7BhfZk5o7MjPExgzPZqU8ptnTZwk1vcpfkxIcoiS3HiaSCo6gdEYhfPDAO+r41QZL Hwt/95IqyFDLGM73wZ+kojBS0u7wVb4+iR5St8AYXMUdxJ6QbuKAAl2/DswdsSKKN+Zn jWCNbaHMzTv3pmb+HH6p6fU6D4Y5wFdLYTARx+tV2ZE5lRytJiLwfGl5qZbbv/vKVwMq wyCYfomDzkdiWOIcFVeVNrWgLJYeCkAWubxUAMm+3NJji3ADIaVRNqWfqfSJZ5us//ye bU6CqPt1C2+mFn3n0DcSYlN6hCP0kaIXt6kBM1s6l/Ab+StKHKMsWRGCMPbjcXfpt/vQ JBdw== 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=08bYIdVzD/dwsPmpu9mRMQ8VoWGGv2GnRSMYhxC4MfU=; b=eI+U7QzllvwWHAhioLnfadytYkdZdpfD11DgYA1KNd6o02oqc/Js7OrgZTTXNuHyJc CdmCziNfw8s5zvKGsYTovQ9T2yCNGB88i1e5WfIU5Idx5dj+M3W/FZcehN6yBkSb48vN rb493cIpP107g/muvTavPVEJi13m5pgxot840YYSMT7ur5DjKDWcbG2tGpEDGuuoIHI6 QhfeiAThGAwMnZpGi51JjZjtS3pxYpyhjDBtYnb2Q/oXYEb3ioO71jZLsbweGqyAkQfQ KfztiLSr+7a3o+3yFMO2MOuvNa6dj2VFmWQOVhlWErmY5JTVcR2k0FFMdVaVfOnLmdHt /Zdg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJroW9gF/1+2xfe1x5sIAfEEubRQhn+YKRugO3/U23+pjcErOd/75RNS9X5kz0QdqBOdg9N0tA6Xw3Ujg== X-Received: by 10.107.6.233 with SMTP id f102mr15198697ioi.55.1468489934017; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 02:52:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.29.79 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 02:52:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <699007789.4519784.1468489028737.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <699007789.4519784.1468489028737.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <699007789.4519784.1468489028737.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> From: Andy Talbot Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:52:13 +0100 Message-ID: To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Scan-Signature: b99b9f5ebb2905dfac0746d3f825052c Subject: Re: LF: SAQ statistics Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ee4a6df99e605379574e3 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: 8374 --001a113ee4a6df99e605379574e3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Most of your messages are ending up in my Spam box, in spite of me declaring each one as "Not Spam" It appears the GMail server checking (or whatever part of the Inet is doing it) is claiming your messages do not appear to have an authenticated Yahoo address. Andy G4JNT On 14 July 2016 at 10:37, M0FMT wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > --001a113ee4a6df99e605379574e3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Most of your messages are ending up in my Spam box, in spi= te of me declaring each one as "Not Spam"
It appears the GMai= l server checking (or whatever part of the Inet is doing it) is claiming yo= ur messages do not appear to have an authenticated Yahoo address.

Andy =C2=A0G4JNT

=
On 14 July 2016 at 10:37, M0FMT <m0fmt@yahoo.co= .uk> wrote:
Hi all

I am still not getting my own mails back from Blacksheep almost as perplexi= ng 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=C2= =A0 contributes, but the difference is so large. It has been consistently l= arge 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 <an= dy.g4jnt@gmail.com> wrote:

=C2=A0Subject: Re: LF: SAQ statistics
=C2=A0To: rsgb_lf_group@bla= cksheep.org
=C2=A0Date: Wednesday, 13 July, 2016, 19:47

=C2=A0And
=C2=A0because it's chirpy CW and we've all moved on from
=C2=A0that by now.Been there, done that
=C2=A0Andy =C2=A0G4JNT
=C2=A0On 13 July 2016 at 19:30,
=C2=A0Chris <c.ashby435@bti= nternet.com>
=C2=A0wrote:
=C2=A0Probably
=C2=A0because it's so easy and we've done it many times
=C2=A0before?

=C2=A0G4AYT.

=C2=A0----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter" <pws@df3lp.de>

=C2=A0To: <rsgb_lf_group= @blacksheep.org>

=C2=A0Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:54 PM

=C2=A0Subject: Re: LF: SAQ statistics






=C2=A0Hi,



=C2=A0On 13.07.2016 12:02, M0FMT wrote:


=C2=A0...

=C2=A0Why is there such a high number of DLs receiving SAQ at 116
=C2=A0?




=C2=A0Why is there such a low number of *reports* from UK
=C2=A0receiving SAQ ?



=C2=A0Peter



=C2=A0PS: http://lf-radio.de/misc/SAQ/SAQ_1998.wav









--001a113ee4a6df99e605379574e3--