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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+eQSL\s+QSO\s+Times\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Fw: [CQ-Contest] eQSL QSO Times (score: 1): Author: k7qq@netzero.net (Rex Maner); Date: Tue Apr 9 23:59:37 2002; 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; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00108.html (9,912 bytes)
2. Fw: [CQ-Contest] eQSL QSO Times (score: 1): Author: w9sz@prairienet.org (Zack Widup); Date: Wed Apr 10 09:31:26 2002; That's just stupid. It will probably contribute greatly to the downfall of eQSL. I'm sure that we, as contesters, don't always have our clocks synchronized to the same exact second. And every DXpedit; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00109.html (7,867 bytes)
3. Fw: [CQ-Contest] eQSL QSO Times (score: 1): Author: ei4hq@qsl.net (Cormac, EI4HQ); Date: Wed Apr 10 23:28:54 2002; I've received several [off-line] responses to my email about eQSL time matching for QSO's - some quite entertaining and all in the right spirit I hasten to add! A number of them highlighted problems; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00117.html (7,166 bytes)
4. [CQ-Contest] eQSL QSO Times (score: 1): Author: N6HC@aol.com (N6HC@aol.com); Date: Wed Apr 10 23:29:06 2002; I wish that the ZL9CI expedition followed the "Martti Laine rule". I got my QSL card returned for a SSB contact because they had N5HC instead of N6HC in their log at the exact time that I worked them; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2002-04/msg00120.html (7,477 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]