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/CNYQD5NSY5LHMCEFOHJDWXGMMUWIG7QB/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "CNYQD5NSY5LHMCEFOHJDWXGMMUWIG7QB",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/N2EBP4RE4PY7GRTVGB2ET3BW3VBUSOOO/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "kk7p (a) wavecable.com",
        "mailman_id": "ecaeda8313f54fe6b33b16a345e6ba3a",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/ecaeda8313f54fe6b33b16a345e6ba3a/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Lyle Johnson",
    "subject": "[eagle] Re: Service class names",
    "date": "2006-10-18T01:52:50Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/N2EBP4RE4PY7GRTVGB2ET3BW3VBUSOOO/?format=api",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "> I really think it important that we have unambiguous service class \n> names.  Based on all the comments, I propose:\n>     U/V \"linear\"\n>     L/S  \"linear\"\n>     Text messaging\n>     Low Rate ACP\n>     High Rate ACP\n> \n> While I'd prever something less ambiguous than \"linear\", our customers \n> seem to understand that \"linear\" means SSB/CW/PSK31/SSTv . . . . etx.\n> \n> Any strong objections to this?\n\nWorks for me, Jim.\n\nNot to muddy the waters, but am I correct that the SDX units will have \ntwo Rx inputs and two Tx outputs, and that we will as a result also have \navailable U/S \"linear\" and L/V \"linear\" modes.\n\n-Lyle\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}