[Dx-qsl] eQSL Changes

[John E Bastin, K8AJS]

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      (n7ng@arrl.org)     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  | jbastin@sssnet.com         K8AJS@arrl.net
   X  Against HTML     |   
  / \ Email!           |