[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tlf-devel] CQ 160m rules, anyone written one?
From: |
Nate Bargmann |
Subject: |
Re: [Tlf-devel] CQ 160m rules, anyone written one? |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Jan 2016 15:01:27 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
* On 2016 29 Jan 12:02 -0600, Mike Waters wrote:
> Thanks, Nate! I have an older version of tlf (not sure how to determine the
> version) perhaps 3 years old. Any chance this rules file won't work?
Hi Mike.
There is always a chance, of course. Admittedly, I don't know as it
would depend on when certain keywords were introduced, as I've not been
heavily involved in Tlf development until recently.
Easy way to tell is to set up a test directory and run with the new
rules file from there and do some improvised contacts and see what
happens. That's what I did last night. There is also the -v option
which provides verbose startup.
I will be running the same experimental version that Tom posted a link
to a few days ago, although with a few extra features that I've not
pushed out yet. So far I've had it running for hours on end without
issue.
GL in the 'test!
73, Nate
--
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."
Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us
- [Tlf-devel] CQ 160m rules, anyone written one?, Nate Bargmann, 2016/01/25
- Re: [Tlf-devel] CQ 160m rules, anyone written one?, Ed, 2016/01/25
- Re: [Tlf-devel] CQ 160m rules, anyone written one?, Ed, 2016/01/25
- Re: [Tlf-devel] CQ 160m rules, anyone written one?, Nate Bargmann, 2016/01/28
- Re: [Tlf-devel] CQ 160m rules, anyone written one?, Mike Waters, 2016/01/29
- Re: [Tlf-devel] CQ 160m rules, anyone written one?,
Nate Bargmann <=
- Re: [Tlf-devel] CQ 160m rules, anyone written one?, Mike Waters, 2016/01/30
- Re: [Tlf-devel] CQ 160m rules, anyone written one?, Nate Bargmann, 2016/01/31