[Dx-qsl] eQSL policy changed

Sat Apr 6 11:55:02 2002

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.