[Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs?
For the record, the LOW process involves issuance of electronic certificates for authenticity and encoding purposes. This is a massive task and even if the ARRL doesn't levy a per transaction charge, I'd expect a registration fee or at least a certificate replacement fee. But someone in authority should feel free to respond that they've actually dealt with all of the technical issues and that LOW will be completely free to participants. 73 Mike WA0SXV -Original Message- From: Pete Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 06:36 To: wa0sxv ; dx4win@mailman.qth.net Subject: RE: [Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs? At 08:51 PM 11/19/02 -0600, Mike Mellinger WA0SXV wrote: >Exactly. Plus it is not clear what the charges are to participate. I'm >not confident of LOW's success. I can't speak to the technical success, but ARRL has been on the record for some years that LOW will be free to log submitters. They already charge for DXCC, don't they? 73, Pete N4ZR Sometimes a tower is just a tower
[Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs?
At 08:51 PM 11/19/02 -0600, Mike Mellinger WA0SXV wrote: >Exactly. Plus it is not clear what the charges are to participate. I'm >not confident of LOW's success. I can't speak to the technical success, but ARRL has been on the record for some years that LOW will be free to log submitters. They already charge for DXCC, don't they? 73, Pete N4ZR Sometimes a tower is just a tower
[Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs?
Exactly. Plus it is not clear what the charges are to participate. I'm not confident of LOW's success. As for eQSL -- you can hardly blame them for not spending money at this point. I handle the QSL issue by downloading the entire log. Of course, I end up with 33 QSL's from N7UVH who I work practically every contest. But it does simplify the record-keeping. Now, if some other NM station would authenticate... 73, Mike WA0SXV -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul van der Eijk Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 19:47 To: wa0sxv ; dx4win@mailman.qth.net Subject: RE: [Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs? also spent a lot of energy on discussing the next round of ADIF. Its my impression, that LOW is more concerned about security issues than about functionality. Paul
[Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs?
Mike, What eQSL needs is a way of sending the DX4WIN user a file that can be used to mark QSOs as confirmed. I made that suggestion, but it is not in the plans. ( do not feel like searching and confirming QSOs manually ,when that information is available in electronic form) A long time ago there was a lot of back and forth about eQSL and LOW; looking at my mailbox, it seemed to have dried up almost completely. The discussions also spent a lot of energy on discussing the next round of ADIF. Its my impression, that LOW is more concerned about security issues than about functionality. Paul At 08:51 AM 11/19/02 -0600, Mike Mellinger WA0SXV wrote: >This is a problem. For the ARRL "vision" (I deliberately used the >quotes) to be successful there is going to have to be considerable >integration of their system in existing logging programs. > >Consider the following problem. > >The eQSL system is a complete disaster if you operate portable, mobile, >or from multiple QTH's. It does not keep track of such things except >for use of the NOTES field. I don't expect that the ARRL system will be >much better. The ARRL system has the capability of storing the current >QTH in each record -- but this requires that the logging program send >such information. And it requires that the ARRL implement that field -- >and use it for awards checking. From my reading of the ARRL design >documents they were primarily interested in DXCC tracking. But >counties, states, lighthouses, and other things generate a lot of paper >QSL activity and that is unlikely to stop. > >Before someone asks, yes I have talked to the ARRL about this and the >answers have been unsettling. The "guru" there says that it is part of >the implementation of the authenticity certificates. Since that is a >ridiculous approach to the problem, I'm assuming that he is wrong. > >Hang on to your QSL cards! > >73, >Mike WA0SXV > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >On Behalf Of Larry Gauthier >Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 08:10 >To: dx4win@mailman.qth.net >Subject: [Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs? > >I don't know about everybody else, but with the ARRL move toward >sanctioning Internet-based QSLing, I have begun using eQSL. It works OK, >it is fast, but it is not as exciting as opening envelopes from the >mailman. I still enjoy - and can't imagine ever abandoning - the >traditional practice of sending and collecting "real" QSL cards. > >The problem is that DX4WIN regards a QSL as a boolean [Yes/No] event - >you either have a confirming QSL, or you do not. With the arrival of >e-QSL's, I will want to track more than one receipt per QSO: When did I >send/receive an eQSL? When did I send/receive a physical QSL? And, of >course, there would need to be reports that differentiate, for example >"e"-DXCC versus "classic"-DXCC. > >Is anyone tracking those two mechanisms in DX4WIN today? How? > > > >___ >Dx4win mailing list >Dx4win@mailman.qth.net >http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win Paul van der Eijk (KK4HD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dx4win.com
[Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs?
As far as I know, the ARRL will only be accepting their own brand of Internet-based QSLing, not eQSL. When I started putting my log on eQSL and receiving eQLS, I made the mistake of putting a "Y" in the QSL received field, before I realized the eQSLs were no good for ARRL awards. Later I went through and changed them to "N" and put "eqsl" in the notes field. Now, when I get a real QSL card, I have to remove the note. It's becoming more confusing as time goes on... John, K2CIB - Original Message - From: "Larry Gauthier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 9:10 AM Subject: [Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs? I don't know about everybody else, but with the ARRL move toward sanctioning Internet-based QSLing, I have begun using eQSL. It works OK, it is fast, but it is not as exciting as opening envelopes from the mailman. I still enjoy - and can't imagine ever abandoning - the traditional practice of sending and collecting "real" QSL cards. The problem is that DX4WIN regards a QSL as a boolean [Yes/No] event - you either have a confirming QSL, or you do not. With the arrival of e-QSL's, I will want to track more than one receipt per QSO: When did I send/receive an eQSL? When did I send/receive a physical QSL? And, of course, there would need to be reports that differentiate, for example "e"-DXCC versus "classic"-DXCC. Is anyone tracking those two mechanisms in DX4WIN today? How? -larry K8UT
[Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs?
eQSL's, other than those in ARRL's own database, are not recognized by them. - Original Message - From: "N2TK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Larry Gauthier'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:27 Subject: RE: [Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs? > Larry, will your present eQSL's count? ARRL is moving towards it, but I > thought it wasn't here yet? > Tony > N2TK > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Larry Gauthier > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 09:10 > To: dx4win@mailman.qth.net > Subject: [Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs? > > I don't know about everybody else, but with the ARRL move toward sanctioning > Internet-based QSLing, I have begun using eQSL. It works OK, it is fast, but > it is not as exciting as opening envelopes from the mailman. I still enjoy - > and can't imagine ever abandoning - the traditional practice of sending and > collecting "real" QSL cards. > > The problem is that DX4WIN regards a QSL as a boolean [Yes/No] event - you > either have a confirming QSL, or you do not. With the arrival of e-QSL's, I > will want to track more than one receipt per QSO: When did I send/receive an > eQSL? When did I send/receive a physical QSL? And, of course, there would > need to be reports that differentiate, for example "e"-DXCC versus > "classic"-DXCC. > > Is anyone tracking those two mechanisms in DX4WIN today? How? > > -larry > K8UT > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML > or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed. > Please post in Plain-Text only.--- > ___ > 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] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs?
Tony,
No, eQSL does not count for the ARRL (it does count for a few
organizations... but let's not go off into those weeds. What matters to me
is ARRL and it does not recognize eQSL today.) However, some time within the
next year or two some form of electronic QSO verification will be accepted
by the ARRL. IF and/or WHEN eQSL will be one of the accepted verifications
is a subject for an off-line, non-DX4WIN argument.
My point is that _I_ would like DX4WIN to support multiple forms of QSO
verification - not just the boolean "Do you have it? Yes or No" of today. If
this is a feature that we {collectively} want to see in a future version of
the software, we need to plant that seed now because of the long turn-around
times in software development -- we may not see it in the product for
another 12 - 18 months.
-larry
K8UT
- Original Message -
From: "N2TK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Larry Gauthier'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:27 AM
Subject: RE: [Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs?
> Larry, will your present eQSL's count? ARRL is moving towards it, but I
> thought it wasn't here yet?
> Tony
> N2TK
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Larry Gauthier
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 09:10
> To: dx4win@mailman.qth.net
> Subject: [Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs?
>
> I don't know about everybody else, but with the ARRL move toward
sanctioning
> Internet-based QSLing, I have begun using eQSL. It works OK, it is fast,
but
> it is not as exciting as opening envelopes from the mailman. I still
enjoy -
> and can't imagine ever abandoning - the traditional practice of sending
and
> collecting "real" QSL cards.
>
> The problem is that DX4WIN regards a QSL as a boolean [Yes/No] event - you
> either have a confirming QSL, or you do not. With the arrival of e-QSL's,
I
> will want to track more than one receipt per QSO: When did I send/receive
an
> eQSL? When did I send/receive a physical QSL? And, of course, there would
> need to be reports that differentiate, for example "e"-DXCC versus
> "classic"-DXCC.
>
> Is anyone tracking those two mechanisms in DX4WIN today? How?
>
> -larry
> K8UT
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
> or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed.
> Please post in Plain-Text only.---
> ___
> Dx4win mailing list
> Dx4win@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win
>
>
[Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs?
Larry, will your present eQSL's count? ARRL is moving towards it, but I thought it wasn't here yet? Tony N2TK -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Larry Gauthier Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 09:10 To: dx4win@mailman.qth.net Subject: [Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs? I don't know about everybody else, but with the ARRL move toward sanctioning Internet-based QSLing, I have begun using eQSL. It works OK, it is fast, but it is not as exciting as opening envelopes from the mailman. I still enjoy - and can't imagine ever abandoning - the traditional practice of sending and collecting "real" QSL cards. The problem is that DX4WIN regards a QSL as a boolean [Yes/No] event - you either have a confirming QSL, or you do not. With the arrival of e-QSL's, I will want to track more than one receipt per QSO: When did I send/receive an eQSL? When did I send/receive a physical QSL? And, of course, there would need to be reports that differentiate, for example "e"-DXCC versus "classic"-DXCC. Is anyone tracking those two mechanisms in DX4WIN today? How? -larry K8UT --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed. Please post in Plain-Text only.--- ___ Dx4win mailing list Dx4win@mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win
[Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs?
I don't know about everybody else, but with the ARRL move toward = sanctioning Internet-based QSLing, I have begun using eQSL. It works OK, = it is fast, but it is not as exciting as opening envelopes from the = mailman. I still enjoy - and can't imagine ever abandoning - the = traditional practice of sending and collecting "real" QSL cards. The problem is that DX4WIN regards a QSL as a boolean [Yes/No] event - = you either have a confirming QSL, or you do not. With the arrival of = e-QSL's, I will want to track more than one receipt per QSO: When did I = send/receive an eQSL? When did I send/receive a physical QSL? And, of = course, there would need to be reports that differentiate, for example = "e"-DXCC versus "classic"-DXCC. Is anyone tracking those two mechanisms in DX4WIN today? How? -larry K8UT --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed. Please post in Plain-Text only.---
[Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs?
This is a problem. For the ARRL "vision" (I deliberately used the quotes) to be successful there is going to have to be considerable integration of their system in existing logging programs. Consider the following problem. The eQSL system is a complete disaster if you operate portable, mobile, or from multiple QTH's. It does not keep track of such things except for use of the NOTES field. I don't expect that the ARRL system will be much better. The ARRL system has the capability of storing the current QTH in each record -- but this requires that the logging program send such information. And it requires that the ARRL implement that field -- and use it for awards checking. From my reading of the ARRL design documents they were primarily interested in DXCC tracking. But counties, states, lighthouses, and other things generate a lot of paper QSL activity and that is unlikely to stop. Before someone asks, yes I have talked to the ARRL about this and the answers have been unsettling. The "guru" there says that it is part of the implementation of the authenticity certificates. Since that is a ridiculous approach to the problem, I'm assuming that he is wrong. Hang on to your QSL cards! 73, Mike WA0SXV -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Gauthier Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 08:10 To: dx4win@mailman.qth.net Subject: [Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs? I don't know about everybody else, but with the ARRL move toward sanctioning Internet-based QSLing, I have begun using eQSL. It works OK, it is fast, but it is not as exciting as opening envelopes from the mailman. I still enjoy - and can't imagine ever abandoning - the traditional practice of sending and collecting "real" QSL cards. The problem is that DX4WIN regards a QSL as a boolean [Yes/No] event - you either have a confirming QSL, or you do not. With the arrival of e-QSL's, I will want to track more than one receipt per QSO: When did I send/receive an eQSL? When did I send/receive a physical QSL? And, of course, there would need to be reports that differentiate, for example "e"-DXCC versus "classic"-DXCC. Is anyone tracking those two mechanisms in DX4WIN today? How?
