Email Detail

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/5LQWSZLRFJRMT6JLI6XLZDCWSWOLJDK2/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "5LQWSZLRFJRMT6JLI6XLZDCWSWOLJDK2",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/EBJH24TWSMMO37DZWZBLELAJEMGSS54U/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "amsat-bb (a) wd9ewk.net",
        "mailman_id": "21664df01bef4757931b7cdb42a9e768",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/21664df01bef4757931b7cdb42a9e768/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK)",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: VUCC & LoTW",
    "date": "2011-01-16T03:11:06Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/UVENUS62ZNASXT6DA365WOXC5YEFWDX2/?format=api",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Hi Jeff!\n\n> I got the LoTW VUCC set up without a problem.  I had already uploaded 545\n> satellite QSOs over the past couple of years so they were waiting to be\n> used.  Well, after getting everything in order I have a grand total\n> of.....21 matches, or 3.85% of my satellite log.\n> <snip>\n> After seeing this disappointing results,\n> I know we, in the Amateur Satellite community, can do better.\n\nI don't know if I would call it \"disappointing\", considering that LOTW\njust got set up for VUCC.  Except for other awards like WAS or\nDXCC, VHF/UHF operators (including us on the satellites) really\nhad no incentive to upload anything to LOTW.  ARRL has been\ntalking about adding VUCC support to LOTW for a while, and\nsetting target dates to roll that out over the past couple of years -\nthen seeing the dates slip.  I can't fault anyone for not putting\nthose QSOs into LOTW right away.  It will happen, and I count\nmyself as someone who will get their satellite QSOs loaded into\nLOTW.  Be patient...\n\nOne thing that hasn't been mentioned a lot with the recent changes\nto LOTW is the ability to define a station location in more than one\ngrid.  This was not possible in the past, but now you can add up to\n4 grids for a station location.  This is huge for someone like me,\nwho has thousands of grid-boundary QSOs that would have required\nextra QSO records to properly represent those QSOs in the past.\nQSOs done on other boundary lines (county, state/province, or\nnational) still require multiple QSO records in LOTW from both\nstations to properly represent those QSOs.  That is a manageable\nnumber for me and my log (around 100 QSOs out of almost 10000\non the satellites on those other types of boundaries).\n\n73!\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPatrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK\nhttp://www.wd9ewk.net/\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}