Quack
I had one eQsl rejection come thru that the only problem with the data for a
SS QSO was the time was off by 1 (ONE) minute. Now this is getting to the
redicilous, I don't need the confirmation but this one Q the guy sent me
log data and I replied.
Rex
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cormac, EI4HQ" <ei4hq@qsl.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 19:35
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] eQSL change of policy
> Firstly thanks to all for answering the questions I posted in relation to
> this thread on Saturday.
>
> I emailed eQSL.cc and requested information on the "new" InBox situation.
> Specifically I asked them about the strictness of the time match. The
answer
> I consider to be perfectly reasonable is that an acceptale match is one
> where the times are within +/- 1 hour of each other. Sure if you're time
> zones are screwed up then you might have a problem but otherwise I can't
see
> how that aspect of things would be a cause of upset for anyone. Everyone
> does keep their logs (those that are required to...) in UTC... don't they?
>
> A few general comments;
>
> I'd consider how ARRL treats DXCC to be entirely up to them as its their
> award. Hence the introduction, arrangements & management of LotW and their
> acceptance/rejection or otherwise of eQSL.cc entirely up to them. If you
> don't like what they're doing then don't apply for the award - otherwise
> accept the rules as they make them...
>
> I'm quite frankly amazed that US stations are not legally required to keep
> logs anymore - no doubt it was debated high up and low down at the time
but
> seems nuts to me. How do I know that any US station I QSL has any idea
I've
> worked them - sounds like I could (feasibly) attempt random qsling and
> probably get enough cards to claim WAS... almost worth trying as an
> experiment :o) Also it must make enforcement & policing more difficult -
> perhaps this is a good thing in the eyes of a certain portion of the ham
> population ;o)
>
> Those who QSL out of courtesy - there are many who appreciate your efforts
> and I can see how the changes could cause inconvenience. However I suspect
> anyone really serious about QSLs is still primarily in paper mode and will
> be for sometime. eQSL is, at the end of the day, an "early implementer".
No
> doubt a consensus will be reached eventually. The amateur radio community
is
> no different to the world IT community - open standards etc. are a LONG
time
> coming and we're not there yet...
>
> Cormac, EI4HQ
> via buro, direct, eQSL.cc and any other way someone wants a QSL...
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
|