K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do
Locked
12
12
Re: K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do
 
|
Clearly you don't use digimodes, otherwise you would not consider it absurd to assume that the K3 would have the same functionality in its data mode as other radios have. And it is not correct to use EQ when operating sound card digimodes, as anyone who uses those modes will tell you. I do find absurd your implication that it is acceptable for the K3 to be dysfuntional in this respect and that instead of bemoaning this fact I should just buy something else. I'm not sure Elecraft would agree either. I want the K3 to be the best performing radio just as much as they do, and the attitude of members of this list who attack anyone who dares to suggest that certain things could use some improvement is not constructive at all. I don't think anyone at Elecraft has ever been offended by criticism anyone has made on this reflector, so I don't understand why some people feel the need to leap to their defence at the slightest unfavourable comment. If we can't have free and frank discussion about the merits or otherwise of Elecraft products here on this reflector then how are Wayne, Eric and Lyle supposed to find out what their customers think?
Julian, G4ILO. K2 #392 K3 #222 KX3 #110
* G4ILO's Shack - http://www.g4ilo.com * KComm - http://www.g4ilo.com/kcomm.html * KTune - http://www.g4ilo.com/ktune.html |
|
|
I don't use digimodes and if I did I most likely would not have purchased a K3. Frankly if I wanted to pound a keyboard like a computer nerd I wouldn't even be a ham. But that's just me :) |
Re: K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do
|
|
In reply to this post by Julian, G4ILO
No one needs to defend Elecraft or its reputation. And on the other
hand Elecraft has very thick skin, and take all complaints and suggestions seriously but not personally. That's part of what makes them a great company. I don't want anyone to think that I drank the Kool Aid, but I'm certain most everyone believes they get great support via the direct link (list, etc.) with the principals. No other ham radio equipment company offers anything like this, at leasts that I know of. Any company of any size has finite resources. Running a business largely has to do with prioritzing and balancing (multiple dimensions, same problem). Folks might do well to remember that, considering that owners already get an unbelievable level and quality of support from Elecraft, compared to the big guys. Despite the rhetoric above, no support system or model or capability is perfect. We know Elecraft's isn't. THEY know it isn't. It's just the best around. You do what you can, not what you can't. If some feature you need or want is deferred in priority or in implementation, it's not an oversight, or forgetfullness. It's about running a business and making choices about that business. That's just the way I see it. Opinions vary. <soapbox mode OFF> 73, matt W6NIA K3 #24 K2 #2810 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:47:01 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: > > > >Grant Youngman wrote: >> >>> Why would I have any reason to think that it wouldn't? Other radios in >>> existence at the time of the K3's announcement already did that. >> >> So what? That's an absurd assumption. Read the specs, read the >> manual. Don't like what you see? Move on to something else. >> >> But don't spend hours berating the fact that your assumptions were bad. >> >> > >Clearly you don't use digimodes, otherwise you would not consider it absurd >to assume that the K3 would have the same functionality in its data mode as >other radios have. And it is not correct to use EQ when operating sound card >digimodes, as anyone who uses those modes will tell you. > >I do find absurd your implication that it is acceptable for the K3 to be >dysfuntional in this respect and that instead of bemoaning this fact I >should just buy something else. I'm not sure Elecraft would agree either. > >I want the K3 to be the best performing radio just as much as they do, and >the attitude of members of this list who attack anyone who dares to suggest >that certain things could use some improvement is not constructive at all. I >don't think anyone at Elecraft has ever been offended by criticism anyone >has made on this reflector, so I don't understand why some people feel the >need to leap to their defence at the slightest unfavourable comment. If we >can't have free and frank discussion about the merits or otherwise of >Elecraft products here on this reflector then how are Wayne, Eric and Lyle >supposed to find out what their customers think? > >----- >Julian, G4ILO. K2 #392 K3 #222. >* G4ILO's Shack - http://www.g4ilo.com >* KComm - http://www.g4ilo.com/kcomm.html >* KTune - http://www.g4ilo.com/ktune.html Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do
|
|
In reply to this post by Julian, G4ILO
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:17:51 -0700 (PDT), Julian, G4ILO wrote:
>I can't >imagine that anyone would think there is a benefit in having audio >equalization apply in data mode Your imagination is rather limited. There are very good reasons for both transmit and receive EQ in data modes. Frankly, I find most of the negative comments in this thread to be little more than petty grousing. 73, Jim K9YC ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do
|
|
In reply to this post by Julian, G4ILO
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 02:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Julian, G4ILO wrote:
>The other issue is the way the memories work, which I believe that anyone >using the K3 for FM - as I expect more people will want to do when XV144's >get out in the field - will consider to be not good enough. The "channel >hopping" memories were a lame step in the right direction but their major >flaw is that they only load the receive frequency into the VFO. This is fine >for scanning, but if you have a mixture of simplex and repeater channels in >memories with different access tones you can't just press PTT and reply to >the signal you heard while scanning because the repeater shift and access >tone associated with the memory you're listening to have not been loaded, so >you may well be transmitting on the wrong frequency and/or with the wrong >access tone. Silly me. When I ordered my K3, I thought I was purchasing a radio optimized for HF, not VHF FM. Talk about square peg in round hole! I own several radios designed for VHF FM. I don't need another one. As to ergonomics. I was chatting with K3NA last spring while he visited California to attend the Visalia DX Convention, and at one point the conversation turned to the K3 and its ergonomics. Eric led the VP6DX DXpedition to which a half dozen or so early production K3s were loaned. It was, at that time, a brand new product, so everyone was learning it for the first time. He said that the user interface was so intuitive and user friendly that with very little instruction, everyone was using it quite effectively within the first 15 minutes. I had the same experience when my first K3 arrived. I do feel that the user interface needs some work with respect to the second receiver and working split. As to size and weight. One of the things I greatly appreciate about the K3 is its small footprint on my operating desk. I'm sure that I would appreciate it even more when sticking it in carryon luggage for a flight! Someone I can only assume that the person who spoke of "absolute sideband rejection" failed his courses in physics and electronic circuits 101. While the IF filtering in the K3 is quite good, it cannot violate the laws of physics. 73, Jim Brown K9YC ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do
|
|
Jim. I've read a lot of your posts on this reflector and you are one of the people I have a lot of respect for as you obviously have a lot of knowledge in some areas. So I am disappointed to find you taking the same narrow minded attitude displayed by others that "I don't need it, therefore it doesn't matter." The K3 comes with support for FM and, having paid for the crystal filter, I can tell you that it does a very fine job of receiving FM, better than any dedicated FM transceivers. Why would I want to use another transceiver for my FM operation? Elecraft is also now offering an internal 144MHz board as you surely must have noticed. Do you really think that it is just negative carping to complain that the K3 does not provide the same convenience of use when used for VHF FM that you expect on SSB and CW with your second receiver? By the way, I would be really interested to learn why it would be useful to use TX and RX EQ (and specifically the SAME TX and RX EQ selected for optimum SSB transmission and reception) in data modes. Or was that meant to be just another smart put-down?
Julian, G4ILO. K2 #392 K3 #222 KX3 #110
* G4ILO's Shack - http://www.g4ilo.com * KComm - http://www.g4ilo.com/kcomm.html * KTune - http://www.g4ilo.com/ktune.html |
Re: K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do
|
|
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:57:59 -0700 (PDT), Julian, G4ILO wrote:
>The K3 comes with support for FM and, having paid for the crystal filter, I >can tell you that it does a very fine job of receiving FM, better than any >dedicated FM transceivers. Why would I want to use another transceiver for >my FM operation? For the operational reasons you've noted -- it is not designed nor optimized for operation on repeaters. >Elecraft is also now offering an internal 144MHz board as >you surely must have noticed. Do you really think that it is just negative >carping to complain that the K3 does not provide the same convenience of use >when used for VHF FM that you expect on SSB and CW with your second >receiver? Yes, it is carping, because the K3 was not DESIGNED to be a 2M FM radio for operation on repeaters. The 2M board is a nice AFTERTHOUGHT, a nice package for remote use that obviates the need for an outboard transverter. Something that appears to have escaped you and other critics. Adding features to a product costs money, whether in the form of hardware, design costs, or programming. Elecraft products are NOT designed to be all things to all people. The K3 is designed as a competition-grade HF radio, and is optimized for the functions associated with HF operation. The fact that it can be ADAPTED to be a nice bed for VHF and UHF transverters is a nice feature. I don't know what common ham practice is in the UK, but here in North America, most hams who use competition-grade radios and transverters are using them for weak signal modes -- CW, SSB, and data modes like WSJT. Again, square peg, round hole. Yes, there are radios that work 160M to 2M (or even 440 MHz) with "nice features" for FM repeater operation. All that I know of are either 1) vastly inferior to the K3 with respect to RF performance or 2) FAR more expensive or 3) both. Last I looked, there were more than 50 coaxial cables in the Belden catalog, each of them optimzed for a specific use. Sure, Belden could manufacture a single cable type that would be optimum for the vast majority of those uses, but it would be FAR more expensive. Every product (or construction project, or antenna, or the setup of an operating position) has design compromises. What -- you don't have five SO2R operating positions with dedicated towers and antennas at 150 ft for each band? Only three Beverages? They're only 200m long? I'm apalled at the compromises you've made! >By the way, I would be really interested to learn why it would be useful to >use TX and RX EQ (and specifically the SAME TX and RX EQ selected for >optimum SSB transmission and reception) in data modes. I don't see that the SAME EQ should be used for all modes, and I've privately advised Elecraft to develop the software to allow DIFFERENT settings for the various modes. Elecraft is a small company and has limited engineering staff. Sure, they could hire more engineers and do more wild and wonderful things, but that increases their cost of doing business. I'd far rather have a company that is financially stable and able to support their products than one that over-expanded and went out of business. As to specific reasons for EQ: Many hams have strong magnetic fields (mostly from big power supplies) in close proximity to their operating desk, and the K3 uses unshielded audio transformers on audio I/O. TXEQ that rolls off the low end can prevent the 50/60Hz field from modulating the transmitter when a computer sound card is used as a data modulator. RXEQ can be set to provide additional filtering ahead of the sound card to reduce the effects of QRM and QRN. As it turns out, the TXEQ that I find ideal for almost any practical mic includes full cut of the three lowest octave bands. Any mic with "flat" high end response also needs boost of the two highest 2/3-octave bands. The former is quite effective at attenuating the hum that my power amplifiers couple into the line input; the latter is a negative for data modes, and can increase the sidebands produced by distortion in the sound card. BTW -- I long ago also advised Elecraft to lose the transformers and 600 ohm resistors and to eliminate their pin 1 problems. 73, Jim Brown K9YC ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do
|
|
>
> As to specific reasons for EQ: Many hams have strong magnetic fields > (mostly > from big power supplies) in close proximity to their operating desk, > and the > K3 uses unshielded audio transformers on audio I/O. TXEQ that rolls > off the > low end can prevent the 50/60Hz field from modulating the > transmitter when a > computer sound card is used as a data modulator. RXEQ can be set to > provide > additional filtering ahead of the sound card to reduce the effects > of QRM and > QRN. That has little if anything to do with it. > > BTW -- I long ago also advised Elecraft to lose the transformers and > 600 ohm > resistors and to eliminate their pin 1 problems. Since we're talking about problems with this list in recent threads, the biggest problem is that everyone here is an "advisor", has a better idea, and believes that they are acutely aware of every issue, every engineering challenge every improvement that could conceivably be made, wants a new front panel, new knobs, a 1500W pa built into the new panadapter, rules on what the radio is REALLY supposed to be and (on and on and on) ... And all from everyone's individual siloed perspective -- the radio is this, the radio is that, the radio was designed just for me ... not for you so take your stupid ideas home ... etc., After a while, guys, the constant drone of the "experts" does nothing but raise the noise level, far beyond what even the improved NR in the K3 or the best NR on the planet (aside from the delete key or unsubscribing from the list) can deal with. Maybe the whole list should just sit back and take a very deep breath, listen more, and "advise" LESS! And if you do "advise", don't come here to grumble about how your advice STILL hasn't made it into the radio and how Aptos just ignored your remarkable redesign. About the only thing worth reading regarding the K3 are the firmware announcements and the occasional post from Elecraft. The rest, for the most part, is worse than the effects of a touch controlled lamp sitting right next to the antenna. It's much "quieter" and far more pleasant to just occasionally check the website to find out what's new ... Grant/NQ5T ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do
|
|
In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10
Well I don't think that's how many people see it, or even how Elecraft will market it once the 144MHz board is available. But in any case I have to disagree with you. I don't see any reason why the K3 could not be a perfectly good all-mode including FM radio if the memories could be made to work the way they do in other radios. Perhaps there is a reason I don't know about that they can't, but I always thought it was possible to do just about anything in software. Your generalizing, which is never a good thing. Personally I don't think of the K3 as a competition radio. I think of it as a nice compact radio that I bought because I had been a happy K2 owner since 1999 and had contributed to the K3's development though all the "wishlist" threads that had gone over the years on this very reflector (which in those days people enjoyed reading and contributing to.) Well I and many others have publicly lobbied for it. But at the moment the options are the same EQ or no EQ unless you are prepared to go throough a cumbersome time-consuming procedure involving third party computer software that was suggested early in this thread, which doesn't seem to me an acceptable solution to something even my FT-817 can manage. Anyway, thank you for your reply, Jim. You've convinced me that the K3 isn't the right radio for me and others with similar interests. No doubt Elecraft will appreciate that.
Julian, G4ILO. K2 #392 K3 #222 KX3 #110
* G4ILO's Shack - http://www.g4ilo.com * KComm - http://www.g4ilo.com/kcomm.html * KTune - http://www.g4ilo.com/ktune.html |
Re: K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do
|
|
In reply to this post by Grant Youngman
One of the many suggestions I have made over the years which have been ignored like most of the others is that Elecraft set up an elecraft-announce list that only Eric, Wayne and Lyle can post to, and everyone else can just subscribe to. I believe that would address your issue. Perhaps they'll act on it this time. I really don't care any more. I don't plan to be around here much longer.
Julian, G4ILO. K2 #392 K3 #222 KX3 #110
* G4ILO's Shack - http://www.g4ilo.com * KComm - http://www.g4ilo.com/kcomm.html * KTune - http://www.g4ilo.com/ktune.html |
Re: K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do
|
|
Suicide is not permitted under current IARU regulations.
Kent K9ZTV Julian, G4ILO wrote: > I really don't care any more. I don't > plan to be around here much longer. > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Dave, G4AON
I'm sorry, but as both a K3 and TS870 owner, I disagree. The decision to make the K3 the size that it is compromised the ergonomics, pure and simple. That's an engineering decision, that I as an engineer understand, but nevertheless, the K3 isn't even close to the '870 in ergonomics. For example, I have not once activated the VOX on the '870 while trying to change bands.
I'm also constantly screwing up the memories in the K3 or transmitting CW messages when I'm trying to recall a memory. The list goes on, but it's all related to the multiple functions shared by one button or the requirement to push two buttons to activate one function. As to the use of K3-EZ, that's dandy as long as your computer isn't being used to run your logging program at the same time and tying up the serial port. Wes N7WS --- On Sat, 9/19/09, Lu Romero - W4LT <[hidden email]> wrote: Dave, Et. Al. On the ergonomics front, as a former TS850 user for years, I disagree. I find the learning curve from my mindless habitual use of my TS850 and TS570 almost painless. The basic controls function in very similar ways. This commonality with Kenwood ergonomics was one of the reasons I selected the K3 over competitive Icom, TenTec and Yaesu products (as Kenwood no longer makes a real, contest quality transceiver... Now If I could have bought a brand new TS950SDX...) Regarding the following: One is the simple - from the user's perspective, I appreciate not so simple for the firmware developer - matter of disabling equalization when DATA mode is used. I've been browsing online manuals of radios from Yaesu, Kenwood and Icom and they all do that. Until the K3 also does, those of us who use data modes a lot will continue to have to leave equalization flat unless we want to fiddle about setting / unsetting it whenever we change modes. While I agree it would be nice to manage that issue in the radio, the solution lies in K3-EZ. Simply store your Digimode TX/RX Equalization setups in a memory called "Digimode", your CW setups in a memory called "CW", your SSB setups in a memory called "SSB"... You get the picture! Recall them as you need them. It takes about 5 seconds to do. Of course you need a computer... But I know you already have one! Hey, at least the fastening hardware is all the same and not a mixture of SAE, Whitworth and Metric like on my former Triumph Spitfire... I always knew where I parked it by the pool of transaxle fluid :) -lu-W4LT K3 S# 3192 Joe Subich, W4TV-4 wrote: > > >> The band switching, VFO management, mode switching and many >> aspects of its front panel design needs a rework. Most of the >> contest operators that I know seem to own a FT2000, they will >> all acknowledge that its no K3, however they all feel the >> same as I do about the K3 and its ergonomics. > > Having used the FT-1000D, Mark V, and FT-2000 series of radios > for nearly 20 years before moving the K3, the "front panel > design" and "ergonomics" issues are completely bogus. There > are other transceivers with user interfaces very similar to > the K3 - including some from Yaesu - and, while different than > the FT-990/1000/2000/9000 the K3 User interface is no less usable. > > Anyone who > making an excuse for not learning a new user interface based > prejudice. Any contester or DXer who uses one of the popular > contest or day to day logging packages with "point and shoot" > features is insulated from the transceiver's user interface > to such an extent that the differences among user interfaces > is largely irrelevant anyway. > > 73, > > ... Joe, W4TV > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [hidden email] >> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of juergen piezo >> Sent: >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do >> >> >> K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do? >> >> I still dont own a K3. I just cant bring myself to buy the >> K3 because >> of its front panel layout and its operation. Although I would >> very much like its receiver performance. >> >> I have used one at a contest station and all that I can >> say is that I would not buy one until a new front panel layout is >> designed. >> >> The band switching, VFO management, mode switching and many >> aspects of its front panel design needs a rework. Most of the >> contest operators >> all acknowledge that its no K3, however they all feel the >> same as I do about the K3 and its ergonomics. Most of us are >> just not portable operators, so dont need small size 12 volt radios. >> >> There are many good radios that would be a good front panel >> design model for the K3a. The FT950, FT920, Icom 737series, >> TS850 etc all have a very workable ergonomic front panel >> layouts that are easy to use. The FT950 is so well layed out >> and very attractive and it would be a good one to copy for a >> new K3 front panel. >> >> If the K3 is so modular, why would it be so hard not to >> offer a bigger box with a new front panel? There are many off >> the shelf 19 inch rack >> boxes that could be used with a new front panel styling. >> >> I would suggest that a new K3 panel with built in P3, power >> supply and 200 watt PA stage would be a big hit. Everyone >> seems to be so over the moon with the K3's small size, I must >> be a freak with alien genes to not like the radios front >> panel layout and operational ergonomics. >> >> The firmware feature list or lack of progress I can live >> with. However a awkward panel layout and poor ergomics thats >> carved in rock I cant really live with. When I used the K3 >> all that I ever used was the band switch, volume and RIT >> control.... thats all, just like a Mil-spec radio. It was >> very hard to do otherwise, so I probably missed a lot of the >> K3's potential. >> >> I too live in hope that a new K4 is coming! I could even live >> with a K3 junior with one receiver and a new front panel design. >> >> John >> >> --- On Sat, 9/19/09, Dave G4AON <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > From: Dave G4AON <[hidden email]> >> > Subject: [Elecraft] K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do >> > To: [hidden email] >> > Date: Saturday, September 19, 2009, 1:58 AM >> > Unfortunately the K3 firmware seems >> > to have wandered off track a bit, >> > two years ago when the K3 started rolling out the following were on >> > the >> > >> > 0.5 ppm TCXO calibration >> > Synchronous AM >> > >> > These might not be the most important issues in the world, but were >> > included in the original specification and are in the Oct >> > 24th 2007 "B1 >> > manual". Currently the K3 fails to meet specification! >> > >> > Can we have some indication of their position on the >> > firmware roadmap? >> > >> > 73 Dave, G4AON >> > K3/100 #80 >> > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > > -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/K3-firmware-2-years-on-and-still-much-to-do-tp3674523p3675847.html Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do
|
|
In reply to this post by Julian, G4ILO
I sincerely doubt that the K3 would have anywhere near the following it has if it didn't offer top-end competition-grade performance. If you truly do not value those characteristics, then I can quite well understand why you think it might not be the rig for you. I would be curious, though, what you eventually determine to be a better "all round world-class transceiver". Any chance you'd be willing to stop back periodically to let us know? 73, Dave AB7E Julian, G4ILO wrote: > Personally I don't think of the K3 as a competition radio. ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: K3 firmware 2 years on and still much to do
|
|
In reply to this post by Julian, G4ILO
Personally I have one folder that the list as a whole is filtered into
then I have another folder that any @elecraft.com or lyle's email address go into. You can do this with gmail using the label's. This is how I do it. If you want further help on how to make it go let me know and I can elaborate. ~BTH On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 15:36 -0700, Julian, G4ILO wrote: > One of the many suggestions I have made over the years which have been > ignored like most of the others is that Elecraft set up an > elecraft-announce > list that only Eric, Wayne and Lyle can post to, and everyone else can > just > subscribe to. I believe that would address your issue. ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
«
Return to [K3]
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |