Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Most\s+cost\-effective\s+sending\s+of\s+qsl\'s\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [CQ-Contest] Most cost-effective sending of qsl's (score: 1)
Author: <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 11:51:43 -0500
What are people doing with emailed QSL cards? Are emailed and home printed QSL's even valid for awards? I have been receiving more and more of these, a few have been from QSO's that occurred a decade
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2024-01/msg00049.html (7,585 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Most cost-effective sending of qsl's (score: 1)
Author: Lee Hiers <lee.hiers@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:12:40 -0500
I downloaded a bunch of them from eQSL and use them as a slideshow screensaver. Other than that, they have no value to me. 73 de Lee, AA4GA _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2024-01/msg00052.html (8,116 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Most cost-effective sending of qsl's (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 11:20:22 -0800
It's SPAM 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2024-01/msg00053.html (7,514 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Most cost-effective sending of qsl's (score: 1)
Author: Dennis Moore <dennis@mail4life.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 12:39:16 -0800
Most that I receive indicate that they are also uploading to LoTW and eQSL, so maybe they're using them as a gentle reminder that they want confirmation on LoTW. Other than that they're worthless. 73
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2024-01/msg00054.html (7,664 bytes)

5. [CQ-Contest] Most cost-effective sending of qsl's (score: 1)
Author: Kevan Nason <knason00@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 09:52:23 -0500
Unfortunately, emailed QSL's are here and their use will continue to grow. My guess is whatever system you find that delivers paper cards now won't be here in a couple-three years. Jim K9YC wrote abo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2024-01/msg00056.html (9,427 bytes)

6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Most cost-effective sending of qsl's (score: 1)
Author: Gilbert Baron <w0mn00@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:06:46 +0000
Paper is slow and expensive for many. LoTW , like the sponsor or not, is the de facto standard. It is fast and cheap and secure. They were first and deserve the usage. We do NOT need multiple E syste
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2024-01/msg00057.html (10,956 bytes)

7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Most cost-effective sending of qsl's (score: 1)
Author: Saulius Zalnerauskas <ly5w.sam@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:27:55 +0200
Tell to USA-CA Staff this. They do not accept counties in LOTW..... Sam LY5W _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2024-01/msg00058.html (11,838 bytes)

8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Most cost-effective sending of qsl's (score: 1)
Author: Hans Brakob <kzerohb@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 06:40:08 +0000
I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. If there'd been email back in 1910, you'd have never even heard of "QSL Cards" Yes, I love paper cards, but if "I QSL 100%" is still a thing, it isn't done on
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2024-01/msg00062.html (11,052 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu