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 wAENApms012701 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 00:10:53 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1gN4Cg-0003mU-Ql for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 23:04:10 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1gN4AN-0003mL-Og for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 23:01:47 +0000 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91_59-0488984) (envelope-from ) id 1gN4AH-0007QZ-Bc for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 23:01:41 +0000 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3175524010B for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 00:01:38 +0100 (CET) X-DKIM-Result: Domain=posteo.de Result=Signature OK DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1542236499; bh=c8bBpgew2a694mQbtv1fGTSagM6sQWu/NEIg/HRg/co=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=Skvbmp1OBToR5sABz/Xip4HpZWWAy3doFiiJIctc1fqzTO6yN6k8xmLxz/rXOLp95 MTWx5cMZkvzfaBWd2sYIByzSwHQg5c5GdFLmezhcH74ctWowXFj1Hw11WV+fNPURA1 7qpPEAfkemDQ/5hYrUL4zZcjvxARhtdTWP42jxR+6dHERg07xApvZdaEFZCmCEIYkH WLSYH9Zzthze6tsCP58QFZNicoZZ3T9gGSBmTWbt+u/adIUKXnr3DPLhoHEeznlJzO FXK26Sr1W5ZldcXSbqhJO/3kKY5IkAMcMsVpfD4O+uSFfrraTzLh5FJ1v4QD55b3oG z90z0Uubakd7g== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 42wKjz1xKyz9rxb for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 00:01:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5BECA946.9000800@posteo.de> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 00:01:26 +0100 From: DK7FC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <5BE86903.6080607@posteo.de> <1UQdmM51gp.72JLQAKj0yF@optiplex980-pc> <0B79F81E329D4776B77EB8F1165ED920@Rob64PC> <5BEA9C60.8020603@posteo.de> <5BEB0878.8060908@posteo.de> <5BEB3818.8030603@posteo.de> <1UQdpUA6cP.HNoz3mwzw0b@optiplex980-pc> <5BEC6EA0.6050403@posteo.de> In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) 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 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Jay, Paul, Am 14.11.2018 22:09, schrieb jrusgrove@comcast.net: > Yes, it seems the current WSPR2 decoder is much improved. Think your > time might be better spent on that mode since there are already many > list [...] Content analysis details: (-2.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust [185.67.36.66 listed in list.dnswl.org] -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: e09cca6d8e44a91eadbdfb3e1b8aec09 Subject: Re: LF: Re: WSPR-15 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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 Jay, Paul, Am 14.11.2018 22:09, schrieb jrusgrove@comcast.net: > Yes, it seems the current WSPR2 decoder is much improved. Think your > time might be better spent on that mode since there are already many > listeners. It would be interesting to see how far west into the US you > could be decoded on a good night. Best distance to the US on 137 kHz was AB0CW in Colorado, 8170 km. That was WSPR-15. Am 14.11.2018 22:58, schrieb N1BUG: > My WSPR2/WSPR15 transmitting tests last season showed that WSPR15 > was much better than WSPR2... even though most WSPR2 listeners were > using the new improved decoder and WSPR15 listeners were using the > old WSPR-X. ...that's the thing. Then imagine when using the new WSPR-2 decoder in combination with the 'old' tools... 73, Stefan