Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Growing\s+New\s+Contesters\s+with\s+LOTW\s+\-\s+suddenly\s+it\'s\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [CQ-Contest] Growing New Contesters with LOTW - suddenly it's (score: 1)
Author: <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 13:17:49 -0500
Not sure why who sends what is relevant. The question, I don't think, should be who sent the log but rather "Did a QSO take place?" If it did, as verified by the log checking process, it should be en
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00416.html (11,128 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Growing New Contesters with LOTW - suddenly it's (score: 1)
Author: "Alfred Frugoli" <alfred.frugoli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 21:06:55 -0400
Let's be clear here. I'm not squabbing over who's getting along with who. I'm talking about the fact that ARRL has established LOTW based on a set of principles and guidelines (found here<http://trus
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00423.html (13,751 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Growing New Contesters with LOTW - suddenly it's (score: 1)
Author: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 07:17:07 -0400
I think that what I'm suggesting falls well short of destroying LOTW's security and credibility. It's always been a lot more likely that a Romeo would claim to be somewhere he wasn't, than that any g
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00434.html (9,421 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Growing New Contesters with LOTW - suddenly it's (score: 1)
Author: Michael Keane K1MK <k1mk@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:37:49 -0400
Okay, someone bootlegs 7Q7AA, calls N4ZR and sends in a Cabrillo log.... and it's N4ZR who then gets hung from the nearest yardarm? 73, Mike K1MK Michael Keane K1MK k1mk@alum.mit.edu ________________
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00435.html (8,357 bytes)

5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Growing New Contesters with LOTW - suddenly it's (score: 1)
Author: "Neal Campbell" <nealk3nc@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:01:24 -0400
I would propose something a bit different. I think that the authenticity of the users and approved dxpeditions has to be protected, hence the ARRL decision to use PKI certificates. I think the bigges
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00436.html (11,577 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Growing New Contesters with LOTW - suddenly it's (score: 1)
Author: "doug smith" <dougw9wi@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:46:10 -0500
I think this is an excellent idea. Another possibility would be to incorporate the signing procedure (and even the upload-to-ARRL feature) within contesting software. You click "File", "Upload Log" a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00438.html (10,654 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Growing New Contesters with LOTW - suddenly it's (score: 1)
Author: "Bill Parry" <bparry@rgv.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:44:02 -0500
Mike, It is too easy for us to play the "what if this or that" game. I can't speak for Pete, and he and I don't always agree. I do believe that we fundamentally agree on this point. I suggested that
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2008-05/msg00439.html (12,406 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu