Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TRLog\]\s+CABRILLO\s+QUESTION\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TRLog\]\s+CABRILLO\s+QUESTION\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [TRLog] CABRILLO QUESTION (score: 1): Author: aa0cy@VRINTER.NET (Bob Wanderer); Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 20:50:44 -0500; Is the Cabrillo file e-mailed as an attachment or as text within the e-mail itself? Thanks and 73, Bob AA0CY -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/trlog Submissions: trlog@contesting.com Admin; /archives//html/TRLog/2001-10/msg00113.html (6,361 bytes)
2. [TRLog] Cabrillo question (score: 1): Author: n2cu@buffnet.net (Thomas R. Williams); Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:00:06 -0400; Before I submit my IARU entry in Cabrillo format, I was wondering how it addresses duplicate contacts. The rules state penalties for unmarked dupes. 73, Tom N2CU <>< -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contest; /archives//html/TRLog/2000-07/msg00064.html (6,573 bytes)
3. [TRLog] Cabrillo question (score: 1): Author: geoiii@kkn.net (George Fremin III - K5TR); Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:23:35 -0700; The rules need to be updated - as that applies to paper logs. The idea of unmarked dupes in an electronic log is a moot point since the log checking process should find all of the dupes. -- George Fr; /archives//html/TRLog/2000-07/msg00065.html (7,287 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]