[Dx-qsl] Remote station time-share for only $30/mo!

[Michael Carper]

I think we're probably saying the same thing at this point... that is...

For #1 - I'm suggesting that eQSL add the functionality that puts the
operator (or its designee) in the middle of the approval process for
printed card requests and handle the exchange of funds for postage and
costs.

For #2 - I'm not sure it matters that much about where the card comes from,
as long as item #1 exists.

With small tweaks, eQSL could offer the exact same service as OQRS... but
would also print and mail the cards.

Mike, WA9PIE

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Understand that I agree with you in principle.  OQRS does just about the
> same thing that eQSL does, in terms of "ordering" a QSL card from a DX
> station or manager...  except for two small details:
>
> (1)  The processing of the card request, if I'm not mistaken, is handled
> by the actual DX op or his actual appointed QSL Manager, through OQRS.
> OQRS itself only passes on the request; payments made through PayPal on
> OQRS also go directly to the op or manager, not through OQRS.  eQSL,
> however, in their capacity as a self-appointed "non exclusive QSL Manager",
> handles the $$ and prints/processes the card.
>
> In other words, OQRS is the go-between, not the final arbitrator.
>
> Should that make a difference?  That I don't know.
>
> (2)  OQRS does not provide a JPG or other graphic image of an "electronic
> QSL card".  It can (via ClubLog and similar means) show you a confirmation
> -- but not (always) full QSO details.  eQSL, well, that was the whole idea
> behind it, wasn't it?
>
> This may seem like a minor point, but it actually isn't.  That is or was
> the main bone of contention over the acceptance of eQSL generated QSL cards
> -- the fact that it is not at all difficult tomodify the JPG file.  Heck,
> you can do it in a free program like PAINT.NET without much effort.
>
> A lot of people believe that this wasa convenient "excuse" by the ARRL to
> automaticaly reject eQSL cards.  However, if you look at history -- go back
> to the early days of analog SSTV (the era of Cop Macdonald & Robot
> Research), and you will see that people who wanted to transmit images of a
> QSL card to verify an SSTV contact were being told the same thing about
> electronic images.   Ditto the experiments with A4 Faxes (primarily thermal
> fax at the time) going on in the same time period.  And, for that matter,
> the same thing about a photocopied ("Xeroxed") card being submitted for
> credit.
>
>
> So the reality is that this wasn't anything new.
>
> Has the time come to update the policy, and have the ARRL start accepting
> eQSL confirmations under the proper (to be defined) circumstances?
> Possibly it has... I could certainly make a case for it (and against it,
> for that matter).  But first, you have to get the two sides talking to each
> other again.  I don't think that's happened for well over a decade, though
> I well could be wrong.
>
> 73, ron w3wn
>
>
>
> On 02/02/15, Michael Carper wrote:
>
> It seems to me that... with recent rules change... we're all left to use
> our own ethical guidelines. So some of us could begin having eQSL send the
> physical cards now.
>
> Look... why not DO this... and it's pretty simple...
>
> - you request a (paper) QSL card via eQSL
> - the other station (or their designee) sees a list of those who are
> specifically requesting a physical card in eQSL (some admin panel for it
> somewhere)
> - the other station (or their designee) double-checks their log and
> verifies that the QSO is legit... they "verify" it
> - eQSL prints the card and sends it to you and charges you for the postage
> (and please either take the eQSL logo off it or change it to where it says
> "eQSL AG Verified" to indicate that the station verified the QSO and
> authorized the paper card being printed)
>
> Folks... what I'm suggesting is EXACTLY what OQRS does. EXACTLY. The LOTW
> accepts cards that comes from OQRS... so there's no reason why this
> approach wouldn't also satisfy the requirements.
>
> Let's do this and get over it.
>
> Mike, WA9PIE
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Doug Renwick <ve5ra at sasktel.net> wrote:
>
> > I need to finish the last sentence:
> >
> > So the ARRL should accept an eQSL as the decision is left to the
> operators
> > ethical limits according to the ARRL.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > With the cheating that already goes on, the acceptance of an eQSL card
> > doesn't change anything. Take for example last night listening to K1N on
> > 7023 calling for EU. Someone using the callsign OE1AZS (no portable) was
> > obviously calling from outside EU (NA likely). Was he using a NA remote
> or
> > was some stateside op sending his call? My point is that the ARRL change
> > in
> > the rules in the last few years has further opened the door to blatant
> > cheating for a contact. So the ARRL should accept an eQSL.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > http://www.avast.com
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > DX-QSL mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx-qsl
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:DX-QSL at mailman.qth.net
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> DX-QSL mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx-qsl
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:DX-QSL at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>