- 1. [CQ-Contest] The Story of Online QSLs (score: 1)
- Author: <info@bokverket.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 01:59:00 +0100
- N2RI asked: 'Wasn't that how it was done in the old days [to get DXCC credit without a physical QSL]? From what I gather, LoTW was designed to be a modern version of that.' I thought that I ought to
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-12/msg00072.html (9,365 bytes)
- 2. Re: [CQ-Contest] The Story of Online QSLs (score: 1)
- Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 19:25:09 -0800
- Not really. The popular logger DXKeeper, part of the FREEWARE DXLab suite, requires two mouse clicks to upload QSOs and one mouseclick to download confirmations. With a few more mouse clicks and a bi
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-12/msg00074.html (9,126 bytes)
- 3. Re: [CQ-Contest] The Story of Online QSLs (score: 1)
- Author: N4ZR <n4zr@comcast.net>
- Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 09:24:00 -0500
- Thanks, Goran, for reminding me of that era. The process for uploading logs, however, is now really simple - perhaps you're thinking of the process for securing an initial registration on LOTW, whic
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-12/msg00075.html (8,279 bytes)
- 4. [CQ-Contest] The Story of Online QSLs (score: 1)
- Author: <info@bokverket.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 16:24:45 +0100
- Thanks to two fellow hams for the update on how updates <lol> are done now, much simpler, and promoting DXKeeper :-) As I wrote, I haven't uploaded for some years, and I am not thinking about the reg
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-12/msg00076.html (7,411 bytes)
- 5. [CQ-Contest] The Story of Online QSLs (score: 1)
- Author: K3TN via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 10:37:02 +0000 (UTC)
- 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
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-12/msg00078.html (8,345 bytes)
- 6. Re: [CQ-Contest] The Story of Online QSLs (score: 1)
- Author: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 10:33:43 -0500
- The problem Ive had with eqsl is that they dont 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 p
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-12/msg00079.html (9,846 bytes)
- 7. Re: [CQ-Contest] The Story of Online QSLs (score: 1)
- Author: Stan Zawrotny <k4sbz.stan@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 13:39:27 -0500
- 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
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-12/msg00081.html (12,153 bytes)
- 8. Re: [CQ-Contest] The Story of Online QSLs (score: 1)
- Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 11:06:33 -0800
- On 12/23/2019 2:37 AM, K3TN via CQ-Contest wrote: There is a lower security alternative to LotW - eQSL. The only real difference in complexity is skipping the step involving a digital certificate, bu
- /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-12/msg00083.html (8,710 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu