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 x15BdqBO009004 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 12:39:54 +0100 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1gqz0U-00076F-23 for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 11:35:14 +0000 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1gqz0T-000766-8o for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 11:35:13 +0000 Received: from lb1-smtp-cloud7.xs4all.net ([194.109.24.24]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from ) id 1gqz0N-0002H6-0d for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 11:35:12 +0000 Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([83.162.220.82]) by smtp-cloud7.xs4all.net with ESMTP id qz0JgcGIPBDyIqz0KgBp4W; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 12:35:06 +0100 From: "Roelof Bakker" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 12:35:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <5C5974E7.22999.AFDB747@roelof.ndb.demon.nl> In-reply-to: <168bd40def4.marcocadeddu@tin.it> References: <168bd40def4.marcocadeddu@tin.it> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.73.639) Content-description: Mail message body X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfMsno3rE1JlWL16pWMrYxX41D9jZADAm/yo1zD35vutdN2klp9LREyQxd9MehFpHIBxSMO684mZ1pJ0AcfzMxOZrbHTYUFeLBq+YW8InOV7tNFCWPbgm apAUo99r4j//1Kn0Kze8mB4W34LUOuDhy+fM3ZmXpijf8aJSCllAs/WHiHdmIggeCcDbLXISk+YgMw== X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) 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: Hello Marco, Your observations agree with what I found in regard to reception of T/A NDB's. Except for Puerto Rico, reception is very poor and northern Canada has been absent as well. On NAVTEX 518 kHz the most consistant T/A station has been Miami. Content analysis details: (0.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [194.109.24.24 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.6 SUBJ_ALL_CAPS Subject is all capitals X-Scan-Signature: aee9e5eeb35c86f052d502ac97832558 Subject: Re: R: LF: MF WSPR Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII 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 Hello Marco, Your observations agree with what I found in regard to reception of T/A NDB's. Except for Puerto Rico, reception is very poor and northern Canada has been absent as well. On NAVTEX 518 kHz the most consistant T/A station has been Miami. So, yes it is propagation to blame! 73, Roelof, pa0rdt