[Dx-qsl] eQSL Changes

Thu Apr 4 11:41:00 2002

John,
While I am well aware of the ARRL notice a few weeks ago about their policy
on electronic QSL'ing -- which was not a change in their position, but
appeared to be needed after an implication by N5UP that they had changed
their position -- it was not at all clear to me, looking at the eQSL web
site, exactly WHY Dave made the changes he did. Or to put it another way, I
think if he had been a little clearer on what he changed and why he changed
it -- using the very references you did -- there'd be a little less
grumbling. In short, things could have been phrased better.
One thing that should have been made clearer is to whether or not Dave made
the changes on his own initiative, in view of the ARRL statements, or if he
was asked (or told) to. This may sound like a minor point, but I've since
seen posts from another reflector where, once again & as expected, someone
slammed ARRL for in effect "forcing" Dave to do all this. I think he's on
the right track -- I just hope he chose to go there on his own.
I had not noticed the check box(s) you mentioned; I may have overlooked
them. I don't have a problem using eQSL to electronically confirm QSO's for
those who desire to do so; I simply do not wish eQSL (or anyone else) to act
as my de facto QSL Manager. If there is such an "opt out" option, most of
my discomfort will disappear. I might even be persuaded to eventually
reload some contest logs.
One thing that's still not clear is whether or not eQSL will become
compatible with Logbook of the World. It would be nice if the two would
interact (I would much prefer to upload a log once, not twice). But if Dave
is positioning eQSL to be an LotW alternative that is still valid for
various awards programs, that's fine too. It would just be nice to know
either way.
And I really wish Dave would drop all of the "patented technology" claims
and the implied threats to sue anyone else who does something similar.
(C'mon, it's just a database application!) Frankly, it makes him sound like
a schmuck. But that's another story.
73, ron wn3vaw
"Why, he's no fun, he fell right over."
-- The Firesign Theatre
----- Original Message -----
From: John E Bastin, K8AJS <[email protected]>
To: DX QSL <[email protected]>
Cc: Ron Notarius WN3VAW <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Dx-qsl] eQSL Changes
At 01:15 -0500 04/04/2002, Ron Notarius WN3VAW wrote:
>>I'm not certain I follow the logic behind the changes, which are allegedly
>being done to make eQSL compatible with "DXCC" (why not with "Logbook of
the
>World?"). And it is not at all clear if these changes were specifically
>requested by someone (& if so, who?) involved with DXCC or LotW at ARRL, or
>were just Dave's response to past discussions. But you know who'll get
>blamed for the changes, of course, regardless of the facts.

Hmmmmmm....? On March 7, a news release from the ARRL said:
'ELECTRONIC QSL POLICY ---> The following is an abstract from an ARRL
News
Release dated 7 March: " Recent discussion regarding the QSL service
offered
by eQSL.cc (TM) 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. Anyone, acting as an authorized QSL
manager,
however, may receive logs via email (or any other direct means) and send
QSL
cards, via post mail, to recipients. This is the traditional QSL
manager
process. As has always been the case, certain norms are expected
when
handling cards in this manner. First, we expect that a QSL manager will
seek
permission from operators for whom QSLs are handled. Second, we expect that
a
QSL manager will do the checking required to assure that only real
contacts
are verified. Also, we expect to be able to identify cards as
authentic
(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). Finally, 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." For further information
please
contact Wayne Mills, N7NG ([email protected]) or
visit
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2002/03/07/100/?nc=1'
>>I'm amused, to a point. Several weeks ago, 'round mid February, N5UP
>chastised me for telling him that I didn't want eQSL to act as my de facto
>QSL manager -- told me that I didn't understand the "new, innovative
>technology that defies definition under the old terminology" by bringing
>this up. Now, the site's changed to act as... you guessed it... to "work
>more like a tradtional QSL manager." Hmmm...

Because that's what the ARRL wants, for the cards to be acceptable
for DXCC. Quoting from the above release:
"... Anyone, acting as an authorized QSL manager, however, may
receive logs via email (or any other direct means) and send QSL
cards, via post mail, to recipients. This is the traditional QSL
manager process..."
>>But what I don't like is this: in order to view cards in my "inbox," I
must
>not only "approve" them but am now required to upload my log. And if I
>upload my log, then I'm in effect appointing Dave & crew as my QSL manager
>since there appears to be no way to prevent them from selling printed cards
>based on my logs.

This addresses the one problem with the previous setup of eQSL that
bothered me about authentication: another ham could (and it has
happened) mistakenly send me an eQSL because of a blown call sign,
for instance. I had the option to reject that card as not being in my
log, which I have done. BUT, if I wanted, even though the card was
not for a valid QSO, I could display and print the card and/or get
one mailed to me to later use for DXCC.
NOW, if someone sends me a card that doesn't match any information
that I have posted, I will not have the ability to print or have
mailed to me a fraudulent card. Very good idea, and I support it.
Again quoting from the news release:
"... First, we expect that a QSL manager will seek permission from
operators for whom QSLs are handled..."
Along these lines, I recently had presented to me on the site a
checkbox form where I had to choose to authorize or not authorize the
eQSL service as my QSL manager. Apparently he is going one step
further and not asking the ARRL to automatically assume that he has
the QSL manager authorization just because the logs are uploaded.
I don't know how this affects the mailing of the cards, but according
to the League's requirements, NOT authorizing this would, as I
understand it, make any of my cards that others receive not valid for
DXCC submission.
Quoting further:
"... Second, we expect that a QSL manager will do the checking
required to assure that only real contacts are verified..."
This is the reason for the change to the policy of not displaying
cards that don't match uploaded information from the recipient.
It seems that Dave is making a real effort to comply with the
requirements of the ARRL for DXCC as they have been presented to him.
Unfortunately, it seems that the result of these necessary changes
have been complaints from some of the ham community.
Look at the facts; the requirements have been set forth, and he has
to make these changes. I support his efforts and I hope that one day
it will bring the costs of my QSL exchange down to a reasonable
level, and speed up the exchange at the same time (I'm seeing the
speedup; I already have received some electronic cards from the WPX
contest).
73,
--
 _
 /~\ The ASCII | J o h n B a s t i n K 8 A J S
 \ / Ribbon Campaign | [email protected] [email protected]
 X Against HTML |
 / \ Email! |