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/YPJ6CZHKUVS7N3M5KQE6FDQTGGNAE342/",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/",
    "message_id": "51B90B4913E84D2CBE6933872607A476@JR",
    "message_id_hash": "YPJ6CZHKUVS7N3M5KQE6FDQTGGNAE342",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/YPJ6CZHKUVS7N3M5KQE6FDQTGGNAE342/",
    "sender": {
        "address": "john (a) theastroimager.com",
        "mailman_id": null,
        "emails": null
    },
    "sender_name": "John",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb]  Rigblaster TNC?",
    "date": "2009-09-08T13:29:31Z",
    "parent": null,
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/RQOYQZF4ZFLDK6KD3YSOLOOAD4R4T4NL/"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "All,\n\nI'm in the process of setting up a simple 'earth station' for satellite work. One facet I am interested in is digital mode. Thus my \nquestion: will a Rigblaster Plus work as a TNC, or must I buy a dedicated TNC? My shack is rather small, and I'd rather have one box \nthat would do two things vs. two that do one thing.\n\nRig is an Icom 706MKIIG, which has the data port for packet.\n\nAssuming that the answer to the question I pose in the first paragraph is \"no, a rigblaster won't serve as a TNC\", are there \nrecommendations for TNC's? From reviewing the literature they all seem to have about the same functionality, so I wonder if the $200 \nKantronics unit will give as good service as would the $540 Timewave PK232.\n\nThanks!\n\nJohn\nKC9IKB \n\n",
    "attachments": []
}