Jim,
You are not quite right, although close. If the times are off or something
else is wrong (and you probably won't know what, just that you worked
P5/KR1G on 160 and the logs have been submitted and you don't have credit),
you would de *exactly* what you do today - send P5/KR1G's QSL manager,
KC1XX, a note saying "man I know I'm in the log can you double check
please?" And Matt may find a problem, like your call K1IR was logged
correctly on the cheap one-ply toilet paper KR1G used for logging because
his laptop ran erratically on P5 power but copied into the computer log
incorrectly.
As far as being too strict, blame me!! The biggest strength and reason for
the prestige of the DXCC program is its security - yes, you can scam it.
Print your own DL, and G and EA6 and PYOF cards and submit them and they'll
probably pass. Try that with a P5 or VU7 card and it gets *much* harder.
They do catch cheaters quite often I'm told. Any eQSL system MUST be at
least as secure! If its too secure and a too much of a hassle (the two go
hand in hand), it can be loosened later. We did consider possible (in some
cases probable) attacks and some of the "features" are designed especially
for them. Yes, I am Paranoid - its my job :)
73
Ted KR1G
>From: Jim Idelson <k1ir@designet.com>
>To: CQ-Contest Post <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] eQSL change of policy
>
>Personally, I think the new ARRL Logbook of the World policy of what we can
>call "double-blind confirmation" is unnecessarily strict. What's the point?
>If
>you and I want to create a fictitious QSO, we can do it easily. We submit
>the
>information from both ends, and it is a QSO. Serious DX stations review
>their
>logs to ensure QSOs are good. But, if I'm mobile and I work a good one, but
>I
>don't log it, I'm not going to get the confirmation. And, if our clocks are
>off
>by too much - no QSO. If we make an error in filling out the on-line QSL -
>no
>QSO - and no way to track it.
>
>What do the DXCC Rules say?
>
>"2. Written Proof: Except in cases where the rules of Section IV apply,
>written
>proof (e.g. QSL cards) of two-way communication (contacts) must be
>submitted
>directly to ARRL Headquarters for all DXCC credits claimed . . . . Staff
>may
>accept electronic confirmations when procedures to do so are adopted."
>
>and,
>
>"4. Confirmation data for two-way communications must include the call
>signs of
>both stations, the Entity name as shown in the DXCC List, mode, and date,
>time
>and band."
>
>For about 65 years, confirmation in written form from the DX station -
>solicited or unsolicited - has been the benchmark. This new double-blind
>confirmation requirement definitely raises the bar for electronic QSLing.
>
>It's always a pleasure to get unsolicited QSLs. It would be a pleasure to
>get
>them electronically, too. The beauty of a cool QSL design - whether printed
>or
>electronic is a welcome surprise - even if it is not a needed country.
>
>Don't be fooled. This new QSL policy is really a major change in ARRL DXCC
>policy. It is now being forced on eQSL in exchange for possible DXCC
>accreditation - and it is a giant step in the wrong direction.
>
>73,
>
>Jim Idelson K1IR
>email k1ir@designet.com
>web http://www.designet.com/k1ir
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
|