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/YFI7GFIYHPGFR66MT4DRXCTO65LFNHX3/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "YFI7GFIYHPGFR66MT4DRXCTO65LFNHX3",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/2GKHG3YVB7PYBHIQ7AH7OTAECM57B2VX/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "vk3jed (a) gmail.com",
        "mailman_id": "e049fcabdd4648088cd7ce227ab7c655",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/e049fcabdd4648088cd7ce227ab7c655/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Tony Langdon",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: Geostationary Satellites",
    "date": "2011-10-10T22:57:01Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/BOBSBJTANG6RZOUYGYYBJPMESFCUHO2D/?format=api",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "At 08:51 AM 10/11/2011, Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr) wrote:\n>Just a novice guess here, but aren't the geostationary orbits MUCH \n>higher than our satellites run?  And therefore cost a lot more to \n>get boosted to that orbit?\n\nGot it in one, that's the main reason we don't have any geostationary \nham satellites, along with the need to have 3 for global coverage.\n\n73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL\nhttp://vkradio.com\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}