Hi Bill,
I don't find it complicated at all and I trust LotW. I also use eQSL
though I don't know why and I don't trust it. I've gotten QSLs even
when not in my log. You have to scrutinize ever QSL. And I even had
current holder of one of my former callsigns reject a valid QSL on me.
Once you are setup and running with LotW renewing a certificate takes
seconds and you get a response in a day. There is even software
available that automates the whole uploading of Qs and downloading of
QSLs. Using LotW could not be simpler than with DXLab's freeware
logging program DXKeeper. I'm sure other logging programs with be doing
the same.
73 Art W2NRA
Hey wait a minute - Is that Bootstrap Bill Turner? You scalawag! (from
Pirates of the Caribbean - Curse of the Black Pearl) I've seen your
movie 30 or more times. It's become a cult thing in my household.
Bill Turner wrote:
>The moaning and groaning is right on. LoTW is far too complex for the level
>of security needed. I can log into my bank account with only a user name
>and password and do financial transactions in perfect security. No
>"certificates", no "signing" of transactions, no .TQ8 files, no .p12 files,
>no yearly renewal, etc, etc.
>
>Each of us should put pressure on our ARRL director to fix it. LoTW should
>be a source of pride to the ARRL, not a source of endless complaints.
>
>
>Bill, W6WRT
>LoTW user since day one... that's how I know.
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|