At 06:17 PM 12/31/02 +0000, W0YG Charlie Summers wrote: >... >Here is the current policy just received from Bill Moore at the DXCC Desk: > ******************************** > >Recent discussion regarding the QSL service offered by eQSL.ccTM suggests >that there is some confusion about ARRL QSL policy. Simply put, there has >been no change in League policy regarding eQSLs. ARRL does not accept QSLs >that have been transmitted to the recipient via electronic means for its >awards.
Does this mean that they would accept QSLs mailed to a user by eQSL that met the other requirements below? >First, we expect that a QSL manager will seek permission from operators for >whom QSLs are handled. We do not accept cards from unauthorized QSL managers >for DXCC credit. Such an authorization must be a pro-active choice of the DX >station rather than an "opt out," default authority given to a bulk mailer. This would be easy for eQSL to obtain, with uploading of QSO date, it would appear. >Second, since most operators requesting QSLs expect that the returned cards >will correctly reflect the actual QSO data, we expect that a QSL manager >will do the checking required to assure that only real contacts are >verified. We all know that raw logs contain many errors. A recent sample >from a bulk-mailing QSL service show three out of five QSOs confirmed were >not in the recipient's log. This is unacceptable. Often, these errors are >only detected when incoming cards are compared to the log. The distribution >of QSLs, without any checking of the information contained on the incoming >cards, is poor QSLing practice, and may lead to blanket rejection of all QSL >cards from the station/manager in question. This, too, could be done by eQSL using standard database techniques, sort of like Logbook of the world, in fact. >Also, we expect to be able to identify cards as authentic. Many cards are >printed on home printers, and in many cases, the data is printed on card >stock at the same time. Although this is technically acceptable, the process >often makes verification difficult. In certain cases we may reject these >cards. Cards should be personalized or otherwise made unique through the use >of a stamp or other personal mark (signature or initials) across a label >boundary. Presumably they are less than stringent about this, except in the case of rarer DX. I have not done this "personalization" on something over 20,000 QSLs prepared using DX4WIN's label printing, and have never had any indications of my QSLs being questioned. >Finally, the concept of obtaining a QSL card at no charge is a long-held >tradition in ham radio and DXCC, and we endeavor to continue this tradition. >QSL managers handling cards for DXCC submission must make cards available if >adequate postage is supplied. Postage can be supplied by sending IRCs, >direct funds, or SASEs. We consider it an ethics violation if cards can only >be claimed through payment of a fee, and thus we will not accept cards for >DXCC credit for which a fixed charge is made. A number of well-known >DXpeditioners and QSL managers do not accept bureau cards, but we are not >aware of any cases where a card will not be forthcoming if adequate postage >is provided. This could be a sticking point, since I assume eQSL would want to be compensated for their time and infrastructure investment. If they met the other requirements, though, and mailed QSLs from a lot of stations to a requester for a per-card cost that was less than the one-at-a-time per-card postage, it's hard to see how the ARRL could squawk. I wonder whether, at that time, they wouldn't begin to question eQSL's security arrangements for log submissions. Maybe eQSL will give it a try and see what happens. But for the moment, I agree with Charlie, ARRL would only have accepted an electronically-transmitted EQSL as an oversight. 73, Pete N4ZR Happy Holidays
