Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Trlog\]\s+Duplicate\s+Numbers\s+in\s+6\.78\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Trlog\]\s+Duplicate\s+Numbers\s+in\s+6\.78\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [Trlog] Duplicate Numbers in 6.78 (score: 1): Author: "Dale Martin" <kg5u@hal-pc.org>; Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:14:43 -0600; Twice, during SS CW, TRLog (6.78) issued duplicate numbers: 40CW 06-Nov-05 23:18 588 N8SR 166 B 68 Mi 2 40CW 06-Nov-05 23:20 589 K5NA 1221 M 58 STx 2 20CW 06-Nov-05 23:22 589 W3PH 255 A 61 Mdc 2 20CW; /archives//html/TRLog/2005-11/msg00051.html (7,527 bytes)
2. Re: [Trlog] Duplicate Numbers in 6.78 (score: 1): Author: Tree <tree@kkn.net>; Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 09:17:01 -0800; Probably not. If your Cabrillo log shows the correct sent number (even if a duplicate) - nothing bad will happen to either party in the QSO. In the SS - the log checking doesn't really care about the; /archives//html/TRLog/2005-11/msg00053.html (8,496 bytes)
3. Re: [Trlog] Duplicate Numbers in 6.78 (score: 1): Author: "Tim Totten, N4GN" <n4gn@n4gn.com>; Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:34:42 -0500 (EST); As another data point, K9GX experienced both of these problems in SS phone. I guess the NONCW (or NONSSB in his case) issue is old news, particularly for Icoms and Icom-speaking radios like the Omni-; /archives//html/TRLog/2005-11/msg00079.html (9,358 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]