Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+The\s+Story\s+of\s+Online\s+QSLs\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+The\s+Story\s+of\s+Online\s+QSLs\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] The Story of Online QSLs (score: 1): Author: <info@bokverket.com>; Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 01:59:00 +0100; N2RI asked: 'Wasn't that how it was done in the old days [to get DXCC credit without a physical QSL]? From what I gather, LoTW was designed to be a modern version of that.' I thought that I ought to; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-12/msg00072.html (9,365 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] The Story of Online QSLs (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 19:25:09 -0800; Not really. The popular logger DXKeeper, part of the FREEWARE DXLab suite, requires two mouse clicks to upload QSOs and one mouseclick to download confirmations. With a few more mouse clicks and a bi; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-12/msg00074.html (9,126 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] The Story of Online QSLs (score: 1): Author: N4ZR <n4zr@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 09:24:00 -0500; Thanks, Goran, for reminding me of that era. The process for uploading logs, however, is now really simple - perhaps you're thinking of the process for securing an initial registration on LOTW, whic; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-12/msg00075.html (8,279 bytes)
4. [CQ-Contest] The Story of Online QSLs (score: 1): Author: <info@bokverket.com>; Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 16:24:45 +0100; Thanks to two fellow hams for the update on how updates <lol> are done now, much simpler, and promoting DXKeeper :-) As I wrote, I haven't uploaded for some years, and I am not thinking about the reg; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-12/msg00076.html (7,411 bytes)
5. [CQ-Contest] The Story of Online QSLs (score: 1): Author: K3TN via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 10:37:02 +0000 (UTC); There is a lower security alternative to LotW - eQSL. The only real difference in complexity is skipping the step involving a digital certificate, but eQSL has all kinds of awards for those who feel; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-12/msg00078.html (8,345 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] The Story of Online QSLs (score: 1): Author: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 10:33:43 -0500; The problem Ive had with eqsl is that they dont do double blind matching. You still have the option to accept a bogus eqsl, even authenticity guaranteed. Yes, I do realize the same can be done with p; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-12/msg00079.html (9,846 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] The Story of Online QSLs (score: 1): Author: Stan Zawrotny <k4sbz.stan@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 13:39:27 -0500; I use electronic QCLing almost exclusively. The only paper QSLs I send out are for rare DX that doesn't use LoTW. I will also answer any QSL received, if they provide a return envelop with postage. I; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-12/msg00081.html (12,153 bytes)
8. Re: [CQ-Contest] The Story of Online QSLs (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 11:06:33 -0800; On 12/23/2019 2:37 AM, K3TN via CQ-Contest wrote: There is a lower security alternative to LotW - eQSL. The only real difference in complexity is skipping the step involving a digital certificate, bu; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-12/msg00083.html (8,710 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]