Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by klubnl.pl (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id w2OFbsuQ012368 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:37:55 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1ezl3A-0005RK-9w for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:25:44 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1ezl31-0005RB-CF for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:25:35 +0000 Received: from smtp-out-2.talktalk.net ([62.24.135.66]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ezl2u-0005sL-Qr for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:25:34 +0000 Received: from mal ([2.98.123.32]) by smtp.talktalk.net with SMTP id zl2seybS5wheazl2sesBCw; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:25:26 +0000 X-DKIM-Result: Domain=talktalk.net Result=Signature OK DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=talktalk.net; s=cmr1711; t=1521905126; bh=rpWUhBxNATUrfBbv3MoQWK6GgejMS2ibC0vMmrLBQQs=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date; b=UeNRf2GlOQO2+u/u0w/2p678JMwAzgidKyWQpjyp4Raf6Ygbjc03DxNDUksasLfNr 95vIxBfAt3B2kj6m1gWrMb84kwpu2b+52C/qKHsfUEKtmJ8coeyzkCTVWbbxvSMgc7 rYWV0KKyl4/345aDOKUABiU/7HZnnFZHMuDEVB/E= X-Originating-IP: [2.98.123.32] X-Spam: 0 X-OAuthority: v=2.3 cv=ZJr5Z0zb c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=9PtPHmF0HonoBFA3cgHD+A==:117 a=9PtPHmF0HonoBFA3cgHD+A==:17 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=F3M5lZpKAAAA:8 a=iwNIy03kAAAA:8 a=79bTZUIPAAAA:8 a=fQ1qFuw-3mJDJQ6spegA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=_v6Cqkss4m6z-gqJNF4A:9 a=DDNu0lK8ei9ngvlZ:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=slCku8JSH3TyizEDQ3pD:22 a=zdwmAckt-Uw8QiilFwnw:22 a=ISTIEq08UyDe2sYTrcO4:22 Message-ID: <961DC2E46CCF451782CDF9CA16003868@mal> From: To: References: <77fdd1d6-7e60-2f33-8c6e-98f787fe0ca8@n1bug.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:25:25 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3528.331 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3528.331 X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfBJwJe1C+q9zyJlYUePq/u0u7Sg4FcsKKGp31j2gcXb1QoLjFP315m7iHdDFmu4cXtoNTV3lr9AYXHC0phBFjNaENN2FoIqEGn4PlKG2vxfgEH63YciK JSeTojS34o/gK3ZStrFC/r/8WRDtvibnRq1ydKkFrHYblQWEjQPrn6WE X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.thorcom.net", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Paul It does not take days for a LF QSO, it can be done in the same way that we have been doing on MF/630 a few weeks ago using JT9, QRSS 10 or 20 or DFCW If both ends can run around 1W erp. It is better with a large antenna to achieve this ERP because of signal capture area. In the past both myself G3KEV and MM0ALM were often heard East Coast USA by NC1K, VE1ZZ, VE1GJ so a data QSO would be a doddle I have dismantled my LF antenna system otherwise I would engage in a LF QSO with you. LF propagation is more consistant than MF also EI0CF had some good TR results in those early days, he likewise is now QRT on LF [...] Content analysis details: (0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 URIBL_SBL_A Contains URL's A record listed in the Spamhaus SBL blocklist [URIs: n1bug.com] 0.6 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL's NS IP listed in the Spamhaus SBL blocklist [URIs: n1bug.com] 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid X-Scan-Signature: 081739af09bdcbecda01e4d970c01b31 Subject: LF: Re: Important question on LF QSOs Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0046_01D3C384.555612C0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE, MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME,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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0046_01D3C384.555612C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Paul It does not take days for a LF QSO, it can be done in the same way that = we have been doing on MF/630 a few weeks ago using JT9, QRSS 10 or 20 or = DFCW If both ends can run around 1W erp. It is better with a large antenna to = achieve this ERP because of signal capture area. In the past both myself G3KEV and MM0ALM were often heard East Coast USA = by NC1K, VE1ZZ, VE1GJ so a data QSO would be a doddle I have dismantled my LF antenna system otherwise I would engage in a LF = QSO with you. LF propagation is more consistant than MF=20 also EI0CF had some good TR results in those early days, he likewise is = now QRT on LF 73 ES GL DE MAL/G3KEV From: Alex R7NT=20 Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 2:50 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org=20 Subject: Re: LF: Important question on LF QSOs Paul,=20 first TA full 2way QSOs on 136 in 2001: from Feb 5 to Feb 19 VA3LK and G3AQC Feb 13 VE1ZJ(RX) + VE1ZZ(TX) and G3LDO 2001-Mar-15 DARC, RSBG and AMRAD - the sponsors of the Trans-Atlantic = Challenge have decided to present awards to Larry VA3LK, Laurie G3AQC, = Jack VE1ZZ, John VE1ZJ and Peter G3LDO for their contacts=20 73! Alex R7NT 136.73.ru 2018-03-23 15:38 GMT+03:00 N1BUG : LF / 2200 meter community, I am a little afraid to ask this question. I don't want to start a "war" here. But... What is the feeling in the LF community about a QSO (DFCW or QRSS) which takes more than a single night to complete? Is this OK or will it be seen as cheating? I am a very conservative operator but I cannot think of any reason why a QSO spanning a few nights would not be perfectly OK. To me it seems that's just taking advantage of available propagation and (very slow) modes which can get information across. I do think that if the operators stop for some nights, the QSO should reset to the beginning because that is a new attempt. I'm trying to find out what the community feels about this. I want to be a respectable member of this community, not an invading outlaw. ;-) If a QSO taking a few nights is considered evil, I won't do it. Now is your chance to educate me. 73, Paul N1BUG ------=_NextPart_000_0046_01D3C384.555612C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Paul
It does not take days for a LF QSO, it can be done in the same way = that we=20 have been doing on MF/630 a few weeks ago using JT9, QRSS 10 or 20 or = DFCW
If both ends can run around 1W erp. It is better with a large = antenna to=20 achieve this ERP because of signal capture area.
In the past both myself G3KEV and MM0ALM were often heard East = Coast USA by=20 NC1K, VE1ZZ, VE1GJ so a data QSO would be a doddle
I have dismantled my LF antenna system otherwise I would engage in = a LF QSO=20 with you.
LF propagation is more consistant than MF
also EI0CF had some good TR results in those early days, he = likewise is now=20 QRT on LF
 
73 ES GL
DE MAL/G3KEV
 
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 2:50 PM
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org =
Subject: Re: LF: Important question on LF = QSOs
 
Paul,=20
first TA full 2way QSOs on 136 in 2001:
from Feb 5 to Feb=20 19   VA3LK and G3AQC
Feb=20 13   VE1ZJ(RX) + VE1ZZ(TX) and G3LDO

2001-Mar-15=20 DARC, RSBG and AMRAD - the sponsors of the Trans-Atlantic Challenge have = decided=20 to present awards to Larry VA3LK, Laurie G3AQC, Jack VE1ZZ, John VE1ZJ = and Peter=20 G3LDO for their contacts
 
73! Alex R7NT  136.73.ru
 
2018-03-23 15:38 GMT+03:00 N1BUG <paul@n1bug.com>:
LF=20 / 2200 meter community,

I am a little afraid to ask this = question. I=20 don't want to start a
"war" here. But...

What is the feeling = in the=20 LF community about a QSO (DFCW or QRSS)
which takes more than a = single=20 night to complete? Is this OK or will
it be seen as = cheating?

I am a=20 very conservative operator but I cannot think of any reason
why a = QSO=20 spanning a few nights would not be perfectly OK. To me it
seems = that's just=20 taking advantage of available propagation and
(very slow) modes = which can=20 get information across.

I do think that if the operators stop = for some=20 nights, the QSO
should reset to the beginning because that is a new = attempt.

I'm trying to find out what the community feels about = this. I=20 want
to be a respectable member of this community, not an=20 invading
outlaw. ;-) If a QSO taking a few nights is considered = evil, I=20 won't
do it. Now is your chance to educate me.

73,
Paul=20 N1BUG

 
------=_NextPart_000_0046_01D3C384.555612C0--