Ed,
To answer your questions in order, yes it might mean that - but only if
they didn't actually test. I suspect Vector got snookered. "What FCC test?
You never say that! Hwa-aah!" What you don't test, they won't DO.
Second, I notice that the RFI list posts I am getting via mail now are
indeed from rfi-bounces. However, looking at
http://lists.contesting.com/archives/html/RFI/2003-12/index.html
I see the posts I am getting this way ARE making it to the contesting.com
RFI list archives.
Cortland
> [Original Message]
> From: EDWARDS, EDDIE J <eedwards@oppd.com>
> To: rfi <rfi@contesting.com>; <ka5s@earthlink.net>
> Date: 12/11/2003 5:43:23 AM
> Subject: RE: [RFI] FCC Public Notice on Non-compliant Battery Chargers
September23
>
> Cortland,
>
> So does this mean that all those vendors who claim compliance with Part
> 15 might well be in violation of the Comm Act of '34 sections mentioned
> below? =20
>
> I also noticed your msg was via rfi-bounces@contesting.com on your
> behalf. I haven't been able to post to the rfi-list for months now.
> Everything bounces or is refused but never gets posted. Has this been
> happening to you as well? Be interesting to see if this one goes thru
> or not.
>
> 73,
> de ed -K0iL
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|