[CQ-Contest] The Story of Online QSLs

[Stan Zawrotny]

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 receive about one paper
QSL a month, mostly from someone who needs my county.

My logging software, N3FJPs ACLog and his contest loggers, automatically
uploads to LoTW, eQSL and Clublog. I don't have to  do anything to make it
happen, except provide one-time identification information.

I download qSLs from LoTW, but not eQSL. LoTW's contacts qualify for DXCC
and other awards. eQSL has its own awards and I have most of them, but I
don't download from eQSL for confirmation in my log. That keeps my log
clean of any false eQSL entries.

I upload to eQSL to accommodate those people who don't use LoTW and would
like confirmation from me. QRZ has an automatic download agreement with
LoTW, so I am also providing confirmation to those users.

Paper QSLs that I receive go into a box (sorted) and are never seen by
anyone but me, so they have no value to me. Electronic QSLs satisfy my need
to confirm and provide confirmation for others. Keep your paper, save a
tree and just send me your electrons. They are free and recyclable

Stan, K4SBZ




On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:16 AM rjairam at gmail.com <rjairam at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The problem I’ve had with eqsl is that they don’t 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 printed cards but
> it’s fairly obvious if you received a QSL for Italy on 2 meters FM simplex
> (unless you’re in Italy or nearby or orbiting the Earth) that it is bogus
> and any card checker worth their salt would throw it in the reject pile. I
> have one such eqsl in my inbox, as proof of what can be done.
>
> Multiple locations are also handled poorly. In LoTW I just sign with a new
> location. With eqsl I need to set up a new account and I can’t enter QSOs
> both locations on the same day.
>
> What I do like are real-time uploads, something I’m hoping will come in a
> future LoTW version.
>
> 73
> Ria, N2RJ
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 8:41 AM K3TN via CQ-Contest <
> cq-contest at contesting.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 LotW is
> > too complex or overly secure. As others have pointed out, there really
> > isn't that much difference anymore, for anyone who has modernized logging
> > along with QSLing.
> >
> > We've seen lots of cheating in DXing over the years, just as we've seen
> it
> > in contesting. Contest sponsors have had to take many steps to make it
> > harder to cheat. Personally, I'm glad the ARRL started out by making it a
> > bit harder for cheating to occur in DXCC awards..
> > Of course, I've worked in Internet security for many years, I have a bias
> > towards building security into online systems!  Imagine if Windows had
> > built security in back in the early 80s, or the Internet protocols in the
> > 1990s. I would have been out of a job, but probably would still be using
> > the same credit card number safely from 1995...
> > 73 John K3TN
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>