- 1. [TRLog] No dups in post (score: 1)
- Author: kg2au@stny.rr.com (Jimmy Weierich)
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 18:35:08 -0500
- Post in version 6.55 does not identify dups in my SS log. Post in version 6.54 finds 4 dups. I do not see any changes in the 6.55 history that would indicate a change to post, however, Post 6.55 is d
- /archives//html/TRLog/2000-11/msg00171.html (7,207 bytes)
- 2. [TRLog] No dups in post (score: 1)
- Author: kharker@cs.utexas.edu (Kenneth E. Harker)
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:50:07 -0600
- I noticed the same thing with 6.55, but haven't had time to play with it yet. -- -- Kenneth E. Harker "Vox Clamantis in Deserto" kharker@cs.utexas.edu University of Texas at Austin Amateur Radio Call
- /archives//html/TRLog/2000-11/msg00172.html (8,018 bytes)
- 3. [TRLog] No dups in post (score: 1)
- Author: n6tr@teleport.com (n6tr@teleport.com)
- Date: 21 Nov 2000 00:27:05 -0000
- This is an easy one. I added the DUPE SHEET ENABLE FLAG to TR log. Post uses the same dupesheet, but doesn't know about the DUPE SHEET ENABLE flag, and in your case - it must be coming up in the dis
- /archives//html/TRLog/2000-11/msg00173.html (7,530 bytes)
- 4. [TRLog] No dups in post (score: 1)
- Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith)
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:25:33 -0500
- Don't feel bad -- in 6.53 POST took away my first NLi QSO as a dupe, and deprived me of a sweep, because I had copied the section first time as WNy... The moral is, don't dupe your first QSO in any s
- /archives//html/TRLog/2000-11/msg00175.html (7,799 bytes)
- 5. [TRLog] No dups in post (score: 1)
- Author: w2cs@ipass.net (Gary J. Ferdinand W2CS)
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:49:17 -0500
- I noticed this too, as I knew for a fact I had one dup and finally verified it after quite a bit of searching. Now I see Tree's response to use 6.54. That's fine. One other thing that I found that I
- /archives//html/TRLog/2000-11/msg00185.html (8,586 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu