[Dx4win] LOTW Test
Pete, I uploaded 11,000+ QSOs yesterday, and have watched the "Most recent QSLs" count climb ever since. To see your number of confirmed QSOs, log into the LoTW site, select at the top of the page, then press the in the "Common Queries" column. The beta interface is a little clunky - it does not reveal your total number of QSLs until you press the page button and navigate to the last page of the display (up until that time, it displays "nn of UNKNOWN total"). Then you see the total number of confirmed QSLs. For me, that number has been climbing by a few more QSOs every couple of hours... -larry K8UT - Original Message - From: "Pete Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jim Reisert AD1C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 7:39 AM Subject: Re: [Dx4win] LOTW Test > At 10:11 PM 5/18/03 -0400, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote: > >At Dayton, I spoke with Jack AA4LU (DXbase) about this very problem > >(Paul/Steve did not have a booth this year). Yes, computer "illiterates" > >are going to have trouble with this. I expected more integration with the > >logging software than Jack described to me. The API (software programming > >interface) hasn't been released to developers yet. It will be interesting > >to see if exporting, signing etc. can all be done through the logging > >program simply by pushing one button. > > This does seem to be the objective, and a worthy one. The certificate > request software seems to be fairly straight-forward, but I've been playing > with computers long enough that my impression is probably invalid. > > I heard Wayne Mills say that the API was to be released the day after his > talk. That tells me that they had some problems with the client-side > software after the alpha test, perhaps accounting for the last period of > delay. It wasn't clear whether this API would include both TQSL and > TQSLCert founctionality -- maybe Steve or Paul can tell us when they get it. > > From first looks, though, the delay seems to have resulted in a pretty > good product -- I uploaded 9661 QSOs in one batch yesterday. The per-qsl > processing time was noticeably longer than for the smaller batches > described in the getting started file, but the outcome seemed good -- only > one QSO ignored for an error, and that because I had an "oh" instead of a > "zero" in the callsign. > > The only thing that puzzled me was that some people have reported seeing > the number of matches go up as more people uploaded and they revisited the > website. I couldn't see anywhere that would have that sort of info > available, nor is the page available that Wayne described, which tells you > which QSOs are matches and gives you the option of sending them to the > award managers. I didn't expect the latter to work yet, but thought the > former might be there for testing purposes. > > I guess we all need to remember this is a beta, and there will be gaps and > changes. There has already been one update of the client-side software > since last Thursday. > > 73, Pete N4ZR > The World HF Contest Station Database was updated 9 May 03. > Are you current? www.pvrc.org/wcsd/wcsdsearch.htm > > > > ___ > Dx4win mailing list > Dx4win@mailman.qth.net > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win >
[Dx4win] LOTW Test
At 10:11 PM 5/18/03 -0400, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote: >At Dayton, I spoke with Jack AA4LU (DXbase) about this very problem >(Paul/Steve did not have a booth this year). Yes, computer "illiterates" >are going to have trouble with this. I expected more integration with the >logging software than Jack described to me. The API (software programming >interface) hasn't been released to developers yet. It will be interesting >to see if exporting, signing etc. can all be done through the logging >program simply by pushing one button. This does seem to be the objective, and a worthy one. The certificate request software seems to be fairly straight-forward, but I've been playing with computers long enough that my impression is probably invalid. I heard Wayne Mills say that the API was to be released the day after his talk. That tells me that they had some problems with the client-side software after the alpha test, perhaps accounting for the last period of delay. It wasn't clear whether this API would include both TQSL and TQSLCert founctionality -- maybe Steve or Paul can tell us when they get it. From first looks, though, the delay seems to have resulted in a pretty good product -- I uploaded 9661 QSOs in one batch yesterday. The per-qsl processing time was noticeably longer than for the smaller batches described in the getting started file, but the outcome seemed good -- only one QSO ignored for an error, and that because I had an "oh" instead of a "zero" in the callsign. The only thing that puzzled me was that some people have reported seeing the number of matches go up as more people uploaded and they revisited the website. I couldn't see anywhere that would have that sort of info available, nor is the page available that Wayne described, which tells you which QSOs are matches and gives you the option of sending them to the award managers. I didn't expect the latter to work yet, but thought the former might be there for testing purposes. I guess we all need to remember this is a beta, and there will be gaps and changes. There has already been one update of the client-side software since last Thursday. 73, Pete N4ZR The World HF Contest Station Database was updated 9 May 03. Are you current? www.pvrc.org/wcsd/wcsdsearch.htm
[Dx4win] LOTW Test
At 03:57 PM 5/17/2003 -0400, Ted Sarah - W8TTS wrote: >So far I haven't found it very user friendly. Yes, it's only beta. But, I >have a couple of friends that use computers for logging, and are as >computer literate as a brick. I would hate to have to try and explain how >to use LOTW to them. Hopefully, by the time they are ready to release a >full version, they will have it so there is only one step to get a >certificate and one to upload a log. At Dayton, I spoke with Jack AA4LU (DXbase) about this very problem (Paul/Steve did not have a booth this year). Yes, computer "illiterates" are going to have trouble with this. I expected more integration with the logging software than Jack described to me. The API (software programming interface) hasn't been released to developers yet. It will be interesting to see if exporting, signing etc. can all be done through the logging program simply by pushing one button. 73 - Jim AD1C -- Jim Reisert AD1C, 7 Charlemont Court, North Chelmsford, MA 01863 USA +978-251-9933, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://www.ad1c.com PGP Fingerprint: D8E2 3D78 339F A7F1 8C13 1193 B5D1 4FB6 79D1 70DC
[Dx4win] LOTW Test
All my Pactor QSO's are rejected... The editor drop down lists GTOR or Clover... But not Pactor... Anybody know what's going on? Just modes invented in the USA supported??? Mel... VE2DC
[Dx4win] LOTW Test
I've been unable to upload my .adi file to LOTW, it always fails (after a few mins) once I hit upload and comes back "server could not be found". What Am I doing wrong? My file is around 5 meg. Anyone had success with this size of file or above? Neil G0JHC
[Dx4win] LOTW Test - steps for success
I have succesfully uploaded 4 logs so far. What a blast!! Nice job ARRL! Make sure you follow these two steps (they're on the Getting Started page) to get your log uploaded correctly: 1) You must convert your .ADI file to the TQ8 format in T-QSL by selecting File->Sign (do NOT upload the .ADI file) 2) Do NOT upload the .DX4 file. You must export it to .ADI first and then convert it to .TQ8. And to echo an earlier post, please do send your user comments to the ARRL - bugs or otherwise. And give detailed steps to reproduce if it's a bug. They can only fix/tweak it if they can reproduce it. 73 Len K1NU - Original Message - From: "Neil Carr G0JHC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 12:34 PM Subject: [Dx4win] LOTW Test > I've been unable to upload my .adi file to LOTW, it always fails (after > a few mins) once I hit upload and comes back "server could not be > found". What Am I doing wrong? My file is around 5 meg. > > Anyone had success with this size of file or above? > > Neil G0JHC > > > > ___ > Dx4win mailing list > Dx4win@mailman.qth.net > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win
[Dx4win] LOTW Test
Neil wrote: > I've been unable to upload my .adi file to LOTW, it always fails... One other note: it's not the .adi file that actually is uploaded to LoTW. It's the .tq8 file, which is the output from running the .adi file through the TQSL program with your downloaded certificate. Hope that this helps. Rich Eckman KO4MR
[Dx4win] LOTW Test
Neil wrote: > I've been unable to upload my .adi file to LOTW, it always fails (after > a few mins) once I hit upload and comes back "server could not be > found". What Am I doing wrong? My file is around 5 meg. > > Anyone had success with this size of file or above? > > Neil G0JHC My logfile was only 1.2 MB in size and I uploaded it by attaching it to an e-mail file, rather than hitting the upload key at the website. I had no problem with this method. All 7,542 QSOs were processed without difficulty. So far, I only have 10 "QSLs". It will be interesting to see how many QSOs match as the public beta test proceeds and more people upload their logs. 73, Rich Eckman KO4MR Hampton, VA
[Dx4win] LOTW Test
"Ted Sarah - W8TTS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "So far I haven't found it very user friendly. But, I have a couple of friends that use computers for logging, and are as computer literate as a brick. I would hate to have to try and explain how to use LOTW to them." And to that, I add: IMHO, the greatest fault among those that put these "things" together, is the erroneous presumption that all are as literate as they are! I consider myself part of the "brick", and have chosen no to upgrade from DX4WIN v4.06 simply because of the "horror stories" I see pertaining to problems caused by "upgrades"! Memo to the authors: "If you want to sell me something new, better make it very user friendly"! C'Ya, Shelby
[Dx4win] LOTW Test
One thing that the guy at LOTW told me was, they really want input from anyone that beta tests. So, what ever kind of problems that you run across, send them a detailed email to the address on the LOTW home page: http://p1k.arrl.org/lotw/default To get signed up, go to: www.arrl.org/lotw So far I haven't found it very user friendly. Yes, it's only beta. But, I have a couple of friends that use computers for logging, and are as computer literate as a brick. I would hate to have to try and explain how to use LOTW to them. Hopefully, by the time they are ready to release a full version, they will have it so there is only one step to get a certificate and one to upload a log. 73 - Ted - W8TTS Joe - WL7M wrote: > Was going to say something silly like "DX4WIN (or any other logging > program) wouldn't allow a callsign with out a numeric element"then I > found out it will. I never checked to find out. There, I believe, is > where I went wrong - Ted - you're undoubtedly right. > > 73, > Joe > WL7M > > At 10:25 AM 5/17/2003, you wrote: > >> One thing that I noted with some of Joe's errors, is that the call >> contained the letter "O" instead of the number "0". That's why IMO >> they ere kicked out. They are close to each other on the keyboard and >> look alike in some fonts, so it's an easy mistake. >> >> Ted W8TTS > > > > ___ > Dx4win mailing list > Dx4win@mailman.qth.net > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win > -- 73 - Ted - W8TTS Amateur Radio Lighthouse Society (ARLHS) #115 Great Lakes Lighthouse Keepers Association (GLLKA) Lighthouse & Islands awards files for DX4WIN & others: http://w8tts.com/www/w8tts.html Worked All Great Lakes Lighthouse/Lightships (WAGLLL) Award http://w8tts.com/www/WAGLLL_Award_Rules.html Just South of the North Coast Keep the Flame!
[Dx4win] LOTW Test
One thing that I noted with some of Joe's errors, is that the call contained the letter "O" instead of the number "0". That's why IMO they ere kicked out. They are close to each other on the keyboard and look alike in some fonts, so it's an easy mistake. Ted W8TTS WC7N wrote: > Joe I submitted mine last night with very few problems. I did resort my log > so it showed only date,time,call, and band. Also first time around it > hiccupped on PSK until I changed those to PSK-31. > > In fact , just checked, and it showed a confirmed QSO with you on RTTY. > > Rod WC7N > > - Original Message - > From: "Joe - WL7M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 8:54 AM > Subject: [Dx4win] LOTW Test > > > >>I just submitted my log to the ARRL LOTW, and ended up with these >>errors. About half of my log went through OK before hitting the maximum >>number of allowed errors. Looks like there needs to be a few "automatic >>corrections" in DX4WIN which happen should you elect to submit your log to >>the LOTW. I'm sure there will be an option forthcoming - perhaps after > > the > >>beta testing is over - that will make that happen. 73, Joe WL7M >> >> >>2003-05-16 23:42:59 LOTW_QSO: Processing file: wl7m-ADIF.tq8 >>2003-05-16 23:42:59 LOTW_QSO: Certificate found for WL7M - ALASKA (6) >>2003-05-16 23:43:32 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 306: Invalid Call Sign in >>tCONTACT record >>2003-05-16 23:43:32 LOTW_QSO: QSO: WL7M RSOF 1999-12-12 01:15:00Z 10m > > SSB > >>2003-05-16 23:43:32 LOTW_QSO: Record 306 ignored due to errors >>2003-05-16 23:45:26 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 1818: MODE: Invalid value > > in > >>field (PSK) >>2003-05-16 23:45:26 LOTW_QSO: Record 1818 ignored due to errors >>2003-05-16 23:45:26 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 1819: MODE: Invalid value > > in > >>field (PSK) >>2003-05-16 23:45:26 LOTW_QSO: Record 1819 ignored due to errors >>2003-05-16 23:47:09 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 2783: MODE: Invalid value > > in > >>field (PSK) >>2003-05-16 23:47:09 LOTW_QSO: Record 2783 ignored due to errors >>2003-05-16 23:47:39 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 3060: Invalid Call Sign in >>tCONTACT record >>2003-05-16 23:47:39 LOTW_QSO: QSO: WL7M WOETC 2001-09-30 21:31:00Z 15m > > RTTY > >>2003-05-16 23:47:39 LOTW_QSO: Record 3060 ignored due to errors >>2003-05-16 23:49:02 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 3835: MODE: Invalid value > > in > >>field (PSK) >>2003-05-16 23:49:02 LOTW_QSO: Record 3835 ignored due to errors >>2003-05-16 23:49:53 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 4307: MODE: Invalid value > > in > >>field (PSK) >>2003-05-16 23:49:53 LOTW_QSO: Record 4307 ignored due to errors >>2003-05-16 23:49:56 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 4335: Invalid Call Sign in >>tCONTACT record >>2003-05-16 23:49:56 LOTW_QSO: QSO: WL7M WOFY 2001-12-01 18:48:00Z 6m > > SSB > >>2003-05-16 23:49:56 LOTW_QSO: Record 4335 ignored due to errors >>2003-05-16 23:50:06 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 4429: Invalid Call Sign in >>tCONTACT record >>2003-05-16 23:50:06 LOTW_QSO: QSO: WL7M KMOT 2001-12-02 21:55:00Z 6m > > SSB > >>2003-05-16 23:50:06 LOTW_QSO: Record 4429 ignored due to errors >>2003-05-16 23:50:07 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 4436: Invalid Call Sign in >>tCONTACT record >>2003-05-16 23:50:07 LOTW_QSO: QSO: WL7M NOEXX 2001-12-02 22:00:00Z 6m > > SSB > >>2003-05-16 23:50:07 LOTW_QSO: Record 4436 ignored due to errors >>2003-05-16 23:50:07 LOTW_QSO: Processing aborted: Maximum error count > > reached > >> >>___ >>Dx4win mailing list >>Dx4win@mailman.qth.net >>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win > > > ___ > Dx4win mailing list > Dx4win@mailman.qth.net > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win >
[Dx4win] LOTW test -- works great!
Like many others I was delighted to see the arrival of LOTW -- even if it's only a beta trial. I read the online material, followed the instructions to the letter and uploaded my logbook (containing 7300 entries) in a near flawless exercise. It couldn't have been easier! That having been said, the secret was in reading the "Getting Started" material and then following the instructions -- no exceptions allowed. Now barely 24 hours later, I have 20 cross-referenced hits to my log. Yes the log checking process does show us we must keep good records -- understandably, it doesn't like O instead of 0 in a call-sign. To the gentleman who said he wouldn't upgrade to the newest release of DX4WIN because of the horror stories associated with upgrading I respectfully offer the following comment. If you follow the upgrade instructions 'without exception' and do the steps in an orderly fashion, the upgrade goes very smoothly. It is as you've asked it to be -- very user friendly and I might add -- painless! 73 de Paul, VE7AVV StoneyGround Station -|<*><*>||<*><*>||<*><*>||<*><*>||<*><*>||<*><*>||<*><*>||<*><*>|- "All email from this address is checked by Norton AntiVirus 2003" Are you registered for DX2003 - Pacific Northwest DX Convention? Visit http://www.bcdxc.org for complete details and registration form.
[Dx4win] LOTW Test
I had a similar problem with PSK...for some reason, while most of my PSK contacts are in the log as PSK31, a couple (probably manually entered) said PSK. I went into the log and changed those. There are still some modes that aren't supported (like PACK), so for testing, I excluded those from my upload. I found that I got very quick answers from Jon Bloom at ARRL when I sent him questions and comments at [EMAIL PROTECTED] My one overall comment to everyone is to keep in mind that this is beta software, meaning that there are some problems, and they seem to be aware of that. At 11:54 AM 5/17/2003, Joe - WL7M wrote: >I just submitted my log to the ARRL LOTW, and ended up with these >errors. About half of my log went through OK before hitting the maximum >number of allowed errors. Looks like there needs to be a few "automatic >corrections" in DX4WIN which happen should you elect to submit your log to >the LOTW. I'm sure there will be an option forthcoming - perhaps after >the beta testing is over - that will make that happen. 73, Joe WL7M 73, David - K2DBK
[Dx4win] LOTW Test
Was going to say something silly like "DX4WIN (or any other logging program) wouldn't allow a callsign with out a numeric element"then I found out it will. I never checked to find out. There, I believe, is where I went wrong - Ted - you're undoubtedly right. 73, Joe WL7M At 10:25 AM 5/17/2003, you wrote: >One thing that I noted with some of Joe's errors, is that the call >contained the letter "O" instead of the number "0". That's why IMO they >ere kicked out. They are close to each other on the keyboard and look >alike in some fonts, so it's an easy mistake. > >Ted W8TTS
[Dx4win] LOTW Test
I had some like that on my first try and they were kicked back. In fact my log showed MFO instead of MF0. Rod WC7N - Original Message - From: "Ted Sarah - W8TTS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WC7N" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: ; "Joe - WL7M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [Dx4win] LOTW Test > One thing that I noted with some of Joe's errors, is that the call > contained the letter "O" instead of the number "0". That's why IMO > they ere kicked out. They are close to each other on the keyboard and > look alike in some fonts, so it's an easy mistake. > > Ted W8TTS >
[Dx4win] LOTW Test
a lot of you guy are forgetting the date they want only 1998 to present QSO But it its tricky to do that... (((73))) Larry, AH8LG --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/2003
[Dx4win] LOTW Test
Joe I submitted mine last night with very few problems. I did resort my log so it showed only date,time,call, and band. Also first time around it hiccupped on PSK until I changed those to PSK-31. In fact , just checked, and it showed a confirmed QSO with you on RTTY. Rod WC7N - Original Message - From: "Joe - WL7M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 8:54 AM Subject: [Dx4win] LOTW Test > I just submitted my log to the ARRL LOTW, and ended up with these > errors. About half of my log went through OK before hitting the maximum > number of allowed errors. Looks like there needs to be a few "automatic > corrections" in DX4WIN which happen should you elect to submit your log to > the LOTW. I'm sure there will be an option forthcoming - perhaps after the > beta testing is over - that will make that happen. 73, Joe WL7M > > > 2003-05-16 23:42:59 LOTW_QSO: Processing file: wl7m-ADIF.tq8 > 2003-05-16 23:42:59 LOTW_QSO: Certificate found for WL7M - ALASKA (6) > 2003-05-16 23:43:32 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 306: Invalid Call Sign in > tCONTACT record > 2003-05-16 23:43:32 LOTW_QSO: QSO: WL7M RSOF 1999-12-12 01:15:00Z 10m SSB > 2003-05-16 23:43:32 LOTW_QSO: Record 306 ignored due to errors > 2003-05-16 23:45:26 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 1818: MODE: Invalid value in > field (PSK) > 2003-05-16 23:45:26 LOTW_QSO: Record 1818 ignored due to errors > 2003-05-16 23:45:26 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 1819: MODE: Invalid value in > field (PSK) > 2003-05-16 23:45:26 LOTW_QSO: Record 1819 ignored due to errors > 2003-05-16 23:47:09 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 2783: MODE: Invalid value in > field (PSK) > 2003-05-16 23:47:09 LOTW_QSO: Record 2783 ignored due to errors > 2003-05-16 23:47:39 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 3060: Invalid Call Sign in > tCONTACT record > 2003-05-16 23:47:39 LOTW_QSO: QSO: WL7M WOETC 2001-09-30 21:31:00Z 15m RTTY > 2003-05-16 23:47:39 LOTW_QSO: Record 3060 ignored due to errors > 2003-05-16 23:49:02 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 3835: MODE: Invalid value in > field (PSK) > 2003-05-16 23:49:02 LOTW_QSO: Record 3835 ignored due to errors > 2003-05-16 23:49:53 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 4307: MODE: Invalid value in > field (PSK) > 2003-05-16 23:49:53 LOTW_QSO: Record 4307 ignored due to errors > 2003-05-16 23:49:56 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 4335: Invalid Call Sign in > tCONTACT record > 2003-05-16 23:49:56 LOTW_QSO: QSO: WL7M WOFY 2001-12-01 18:48:00Z 6m SSB > 2003-05-16 23:49:56 LOTW_QSO: Record 4335 ignored due to errors > 2003-05-16 23:50:06 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 4429: Invalid Call Sign in > tCONTACT record > 2003-05-16 23:50:06 LOTW_QSO: QSO: WL7M KMOT 2001-12-02 21:55:00Z 6m SSB > 2003-05-16 23:50:06 LOTW_QSO: Record 4429 ignored due to errors > 2003-05-16 23:50:07 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 4436: Invalid Call Sign in > tCONTACT record > 2003-05-16 23:50:07 LOTW_QSO: QSO: WL7M NOEXX 2001-12-02 22:00:00Z 6m SSB > 2003-05-16 23:50:07 LOTW_QSO: Record 4436 ignored due to errors > 2003-05-16 23:50:07 LOTW_QSO: Processing aborted: Maximum error count reached > > > ___ > Dx4win mailing list > Dx4win@mailman.qth.net > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win
[Dx4win] LOTW Test
I just submitted my log to the ARRL LOTW, and ended up with these errors. About half of my log went through OK before hitting the maximum number of allowed errors. Looks like there needs to be a few "automatic corrections" in DX4WIN which happen should you elect to submit your log to the LOTW. I'm sure there will be an option forthcoming - perhaps after the beta testing is over - that will make that happen. 73, Joe WL7M 2003-05-16 23:42:59 LOTW_QSO: Processing file: wl7m-ADIF.tq8 2003-05-16 23:42:59 LOTW_QSO: Certificate found for WL7M - ALASKA (6) 2003-05-16 23:43:32 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 306: Invalid Call Sign in tCONTACT record 2003-05-16 23:43:32 LOTW_QSO: QSO: WL7M RSOF 1999-12-12 01:15:00Z 10m SSB 2003-05-16 23:43:32 LOTW_QSO: Record 306 ignored due to errors 2003-05-16 23:45:26 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 1818: MODE: Invalid value in field (PSK) 2003-05-16 23:45:26 LOTW_QSO: Record 1818 ignored due to errors 2003-05-16 23:45:26 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 1819: MODE: Invalid value in field (PSK) 2003-05-16 23:45:26 LOTW_QSO: Record 1819 ignored due to errors 2003-05-16 23:47:09 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 2783: MODE: Invalid value in field (PSK) 2003-05-16 23:47:09 LOTW_QSO: Record 2783 ignored due to errors 2003-05-16 23:47:39 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 3060: Invalid Call Sign in tCONTACT record 2003-05-16 23:47:39 LOTW_QSO: QSO: WL7M WOETC 2001-09-30 21:31:00Z 15m RTTY 2003-05-16 23:47:39 LOTW_QSO: Record 3060 ignored due to errors 2003-05-16 23:49:02 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 3835: MODE: Invalid value in field (PSK) 2003-05-16 23:49:02 LOTW_QSO: Record 3835 ignored due to errors 2003-05-16 23:49:53 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 4307: MODE: Invalid value in field (PSK) 2003-05-16 23:49:53 LOTW_QSO: Record 4307 ignored due to errors 2003-05-16 23:49:56 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 4335: Invalid Call Sign in tCONTACT record 2003-05-16 23:49:56 LOTW_QSO: QSO: WL7M WOFY 2001-12-01 18:48:00Z 6m SSB 2003-05-16 23:49:56 LOTW_QSO: Record 4335 ignored due to errors 2003-05-16 23:50:06 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 4429: Invalid Call Sign in tCONTACT record 2003-05-16 23:50:06 LOTW_QSO: QSO: WL7M KMOT 2001-12-02 21:55:00Z 6m SSB 2003-05-16 23:50:06 LOTW_QSO: Record 4429 ignored due to errors 2003-05-16 23:50:07 LOTW_QSO: Error in record 4436: Invalid Call Sign in tCONTACT record 2003-05-16 23:50:07 LOTW_QSO: QSO: WL7M NOEXX 2001-12-02 22:00:00Z 6m SSB 2003-05-16 23:50:07 LOTW_QSO: Record 4436 ignored due to errors 2003-05-16 23:50:07 LOTW_QSO: Processing aborted: Maximum error count reached
