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/ID6ZSYB65FOXBKWRXH2SN5UNYCEOH345/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "ID6ZSYB65FOXBKWRXH2SN5UNYCEOH345",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/U5WF6YV5BE7YXSHICKKNTZSHRIXQV44Q/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "eric.fort (a) gmail.com",
        "mailman_id": "2b2633ba6515405baf7680ea3c20a9ef",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/2b2633ba6515405baf7680ea3c20a9ef/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Eric Fort",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: FLTSATCOM Hacked",
    "date": "2009-04-22T14:01:34Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/UUV7MSUKBGVX62APECSKVMRH3OVJOWOP/?format=api",
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/7W4QLV2STWGQENVSVPTTXG2F55QOJDN2/?format=api"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "What I was referring to is the ability to set aside a few communications\nchannels on a temporary basis that would be relatively immune to\ninterference and kept clear for use by those who needed the resource such as\na net serving an affected area.  I hope I wasn't misunderstood from that.  I\nwas in no way suggesting that any spectrum be reallocated away from the\namateur radio service, only that a means may be considered for certain\nchannels to be protected from interference using technical means for a\nlimited duration while those participating in the sanctioned activity needed\nthe resource for the benefit of the republic as a whole.  Is such a system\ncapability such a bad idea?\n\nEric\nAF6EP\n\nOn Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:40 AM, Jack K. <[email protected]> wrote:\n\n> I ditto those statements entirely... Also would any frequency be taken from\n> other hams (most likely) or would an additional frequency spectrum be\n> allocated... Frankly Elitist suggestions like this make me think of Big\n> Brother... Do you really want to make hams go through more of the BS the\n> posting daily on how and what you can do on the amateur bands?\n>\n> DE KD1PE\n>\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> Eric...the \"instant\" things start \"being reserved\" for a group of\n> amateurs...for any reason other then by regulatory action...we have started\n> down a very slippery slope that has no real end.\n>\n> The FCC can and does \"set aside\" frequencies in serious emergencies for\n> special communications and then they end it...the frequencies belong to The\n> Republic.  To be blunt..the way AMSAT has mishandled the amateur satellite\n> acquisition system since the ramp up to AO40 would in fact tell me that they\n> shouldnt be trusted with just about anything much less who gets on the bird.\n>\n> Robert WB5MZO amsat life member\n>\n>\n>\n",
    "attachments": []
}