Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+\[SUSPECTED\s+SPAM\]\s+Re\:\s+Is\s+it\s+time\s+to\s+reevaluate\s+CQWW\s+Scoring\s+Rules\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+\[SUSPECTED\s+SPAM\]\s+Re\:\s+Is\s+it\s+time\s+to\s+reevaluate\s+CQWW\s+Scoring\s+Rules\?\s*$/: 1 ]

Total 1 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules? (score: 1): Author: "Shelby Summerville" <k4ww@arrl.net>; Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:12:54 -0500; f5vhj@orange.fr wrote: "If the casual operator does not know their exact location, they can leave the radio off." IMHO, this type of attitude is exactly what is NOT needed? Without the "casual" parti; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-12/msg00359.html (10,249 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 1
Page: [1]