CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] L.O.T.W.

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] L.O.T.W.
From: Bill Turner <dezrat1242@ispwest.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:19:10 -0700
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
At 06:07 PM 7/27/2005, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>You are not going to maintain security by eliminating the
>security ... that's like killing the patient to "cure the
>disease"

_________________________________________________

You guys are wearing me out here, but let me say it one more time:

I don't want to reduce security. I want the security processing to occur at 
the ARRL's end, not at the user's end.

This is how the banks do it. It works for them and it should be plenty good 
enough for us.

Until the ARRL makes the above possible, we are all losing QSLs from 
stations which choose not to use it because of it's complexity.

It is not "too complex", it is "unnecessarily complex".

Simplify it and they will come.

Bill, W6WRT

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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