Mike, What eQSL needs is a way of sending the DX4WIN user a file that can be used to mark QSOs as confirmed. I made that suggestion, but it is not in the plans. ( do not feel like searching and confirming QSOs manually ,when that information is available in electronic form)
A long time ago there was a lot of back and forth about eQSL and LOW; looking at my mailbox, it seemed to have dried up almost completely. The discussions also spent a lot of energy on discussing the next round of ADIF. Its my impression, that LOW is more concerned about security issues than about functionality. Paul At 08:51 AM 11/19/02 -0600, Mike Mellinger WA0SXV wrote: >This is a problem. For the ARRL "vision" (I deliberately used the >quotes) to be successful there is going to have to be considerable >integration of their system in existing logging programs. > >Consider the following problem. > >The eQSL system is a complete disaster if you operate portable, mobile, >or from multiple QTH's. It does not keep track of such things except >for use of the NOTES field. I don't expect that the ARRL system will be >much better. The ARRL system has the capability of storing the current >QTH in each record -- but this requires that the logging program send >such information. And it requires that the ARRL implement that field -- >and use it for awards checking. From my reading of the ARRL design >documents they were primarily interested in DXCC tracking. But >counties, states, lighthouses, and other things generate a lot of paper >QSL activity and that is unlikely to stop. > >Before someone asks, yes I have talked to the ARRL about this and the >answers have been unsettling. The "guru" there says that it is part of >the implementation of the authenticity certificates. Since that is a >ridiculous approach to the problem, I'm assuming that he is wrong. > >Hang on to your QSL cards! > >73, >Mike WA0SXV > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >On Behalf Of Larry Gauthier >Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 08:10 >To: dx4win@mailman.qth.net >Subject: [Dx4win] Next version of DX4WIN - tracking QSLs and e-QSLs? > >I don't know about everybody else, but with the ARRL move toward >sanctioning Internet-based QSLing, I have begun using eQSL. It works OK, >it is fast, but it is not as exciting as opening envelopes from the >mailman. I still enjoy - and can't imagine ever abandoning - the >traditional practice of sending and collecting "real" QSL cards. > >The problem is that DX4WIN regards a QSL as a boolean [Yes/No] event - >you either have a confirming QSL, or you do not. With the arrival of >e-QSL's, I will want to track more than one receipt per QSO: When did I >send/receive an eQSL? When did I send/receive a physical QSL? And, of >course, there would need to be reports that differentiate, for example >"e"-DXCC versus "classic"-DXCC. > >Is anyone tracking those two mechanisms in DX4WIN today? How? > > > >_______________________________________________ >Dx4win mailing list >Dx4win@mailman.qth.net >http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paul van der Eijk (KK4HD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dx4win.com
