[Dx-qsl] eQSL policy changed

Sat Apr 6 11:00:01 2002

Ron:
Here is the entire quoted eMail in question. If you have evidence that
contradict this as being the accurately quoted eMail, bring it forward.
73s, de ~ Vince~
> From: Moore, Bill, NC1L [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 12:31 PM
> To: 'Richard B. Drake'
> Cc: DXCC
> Subject: RE: Professionally Printed and mailed eQSL's
> Hi Rich:
> Something does not sound right here. You are saying that Dave is physically
> mailing out QSL cards by the US postal system? This is news to me.
>> If you are my QSL manager and I send you my logs by e-mail, I am sending them
> direct from point A to point B. Just as if I was sending them to you by
> regular mail. This is OK. I remember somewhere several years ago that some
> people used to get their logs over the air on RTTY and another digital mode
> (AMTOR I think). Not a problem.
>> However, if as the result of a log being sent to E-QSL, someone goes in and
> receives a card electronically and uses it for DXCC, that e-QSL cannot be
> accepted for DXCC credit under rule 2. I spent a bit of time with a simple
> shareware program to prove the unreliability of that method.
>> However, if Dave, acting as QSL manager with station logs completes a card
> (even one from his printer) and sends it by mail to you, this is an acceptable
> exchange and we have see this often for several years now. (assuming he
> phyiscally checks the log). Many people use self-made cards from their
> printer. Each one is evaluated on a case by case basis, and many times under
> Section IV rule 4(b) we have conducted an audit to insure the vaildity of a
> card like this.
>> In cases like this it would be REAL nice if they used a stamp or placed their
> initials or signature on it, but this is not required by the rules. However,
> this issue has been discussed and has been given some consideration.
>> To clarify, if Dave is sending out cards through the US Postal System as the
> result of the log(s) he receives, this is OK. (This would basically be
> operating as QSL manager).
>> Regards,
>> Bill Moore NC1L
> DXCC Manager
>> Note: Use of this message is authorized in discussions as long as it is used
> in its entirity and as long as parts are not edited out.
>Ron Notarius WN3VAW wrote:
> It would be fairer to say that a private email full of conditions was
> mis-quoted as an official change of ARRL policy, and the publication of this
> email is what led to this misunderstanding.