Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+LoTW\s+and\s+security\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+LoTW\s+and\s+security\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] LoTW and security (score: 1): Author: "Mike Gilmer - N2MG" <n2mg@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 06:51:20 -0700 (PDT); I have to explain this to eHam users on a regular basis. Without first snail mailing each new user using his FCC address to verify the individual (which we obviously do not do), we have no way to kno; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00357.html (9,832 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW and security (score: 1): Author: K4SB <k4sb@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:34:28 +0000; snipped-- And I suggest the ARRL could well have used it's own membership files for a great number of call registrations upon email request. Or do they believe ARRL members use fake addresses and cal; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00363.html (8,650 bytes)
3. RE: [CQ-Contest] LoTW and security (score: 1): Author: "Darryl Wagoner" <darryl@shecora.com>; Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:57:15 -0400; If ARRL used their own membership files then you could by a cert for the cost of a membership. I have seen the fake paper cards and the length the DX went to fake them. That is one of the reasons th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00366.html (9,283 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW and security (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <wrt@dslextreme.com>; Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:31:13 -0700; _________________________________________________________ Someone once posited that one purpose of using the FCC database was to "encourage" hams to keep their FCC info updated. I wouldn't be surpris; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00369.html (8,533 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW and security (score: 1): Author: K4SB <k4sb@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:17:33 +0000; -- I think I screwed up here. Some kind individual informed me privately that doing the above would open the door for anyone to subscribe to QST, and then do what they wish. I think I'll just do it; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00370.html (8,473 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW and security (score: 1): Author: "N7MAL" <N7MAL@CITLINK.NET>; Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:09:17 -0000; I am/was a big supporter of LOTW. I participated in the beta test and applied for a certificate the very first day. I have yet to receive the certicificate. My ''''official''''' address is a post off; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00372.html (11,018 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW and security (score: 1): Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@charter.net>; Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:19:39 -0700; I don't know about that. Have you ever used paypal? They confirm a persons address very easily. They can also verify that a person is who he says he is, and they handle millions of dollars a month. S; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00388.html (8,524 bytes)
8. Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW and security (score: 1): Author: "ted demopoulos" <kr1g@hotmail.com>; Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 02:03:52 +0000; Wait a minute, do I understand this right? You think the ARRL and FCC are joining together to plot against us, maybe to force us to reveal our Sociall Security numbers (required for updating FCC info; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-09/msg00390.html (10,866 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] LoTW and security (score: 1): Author: Jeff Stai WK6I <wk6i@twistedoak.com>; Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 09:16:46 -0700; Paypal confirms you 'very easily' by making deposits of small random amounts to your bank account, which you then confirm by contacting your bank and reporting back the amounts deposited. This is of; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-10/msg00008.html (9,183 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]