[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] LOTW

To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] LOTW
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:50:02 -0400
List-post: <mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
"at one time"

I don't think that even lasted a week.  And the ARRL didn't reject it.  As I
remember from the QSL reflector at the time, the user base was up in arms
about it suddenly being implemented with no warning or discussion.  Of
course, blaming it all on the ARRL was a convenient scapegoat (isn't it
always?  whether it's true or not?)

-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Bill Rowlett
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:27 PM
To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] LOTW

If you remember, E-QSL at one time had an electronic signature requirment.
This was to make the security such that the ARRL would accept their product.
The ARRL rejected it because they wanted their own.

Bill  KC4ATU

>From: wo8l@aol.com
>Reply-To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
>To: tentec@contesting.com
>Subject: [TenTec] LOTW
>Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:01:39 -0400
>Hello Again,
>N4PY mentioned that his response rate might be fairly low because he has a
>lot of older QSOs posted.
>In my personal experience, I like E-QSL because I'm constantly amazed how I
>get a QSL from a CW contact the previous day right above one from 1992.  I
>rarely check into LOTW because my total seldom change.
>I still think the ARRL has missed the mark.  They ought to team up with
>E-QSL or somebody similar and design something more appealing and
>AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free
>from AOL at AOL.com.
>TenTec mailing list

With tax season right around the corner, make sure to follow these few
simple tips.

TenTec mailing list

TenTec mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>