[Dx-qsl] eQSL policy changed

Sat Apr 6 15:43:00 2002

Sending your posts in duplicate does not add to their validity.
Ron Notarius WN3VAW wrote:
> Vince:
>> Let's quit confusing the issue(s) at hand.
>> (1) It is obvious from the content and tone of the email in question that
> this was a private answer to an emailed question, not a public statement of
> policy. And why hasn't anyone ever posted the original question in order to
> put the answer in context?
>> It was the use of this private email by eQSL as a public policy statement,
> which it obviously was not, that has led to the "misunderstanding" I was
> talking about.
>> (2) The email from NC1L is full of questions and conditionals. Or is
> someone now going to argue over the meaning of the word "if" ? What are we,
> Clinton's lawyers? Bill's email, in any event, starts off with a suprise in
> the (then) new function of eQSL to print and mail cards, and is full of
> questions, conditionals, and suppositions from that point on. Or did you
> just read the parts that sounded good?
>> (3) The email from N7NG was a public statement clarifying ARRL's policy.
> It does not "override" the earlier email. The key again, is "acting as a
> QSL Manager." Because of recent problems with individuals claiming to be
> the authorized QSL manager when they are not -- such as F/HH2PM et al -- the
> DXCC desk has made it quite clear that the issuer of the card, if not the
> original station, MUST be authorized.
>> eQSL, or anyone else doing a similar function (INCLUDING Logbook of the
> World) can print a card with my call on it claiming to be a valid QSL card.
> If I haven't issued it or I haven't explicitly stated that said card printer
> is my manager, it's a fake and should be treated accordingly.
>> This is not a new policy, and I think that it's a very good one. So what's
> the fuss all about?
>> (4) None of this has anything directly to do with why eQSL changed it's
> system with little or no prior warning on April 1st. I've heard from one
> member of the "advisory" board who was very upset that this was done,
> according to him, with no input or discussion amongst the board.
>> Yes, you read that right. eQSL -- exactly whom, I don't know -- chose to do
> this on their own. No one forced them to do it. There are many different
> security models, and they could have adopted one which meant that registered
> users (using passwords) could still see the entire inbox without being
> forced to upload logs. eQSL could have chosen to put a fuller and more
> detailed description of what was done and why on their web site. And eQSL
> could have given people warning before doing this. They're bringing this
> grief on themselves all by themselves.
>> And if you're going to clip my comments, clip everything. Dropping 3/4's of
> what I said changes the context of the comment you're no longer quoting. It
> is not appreciated.
>> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Vince <[email protected]>
> To: Ron Notarius WN3VAW <[email protected]>
> Cc: DX QSL <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 10:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [Dx-qsl] eQSL policy changed
>> 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.
>> Please help QSL.NET . Send your donation now.
>> If you have already donated, thanks !