Re: arrl is accepting eqsls for dxcc credit
From: Moore, Bill, NC1L [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 12:31 PM
To: 'Richard B. Drake'
Subject: RE: Professionally Printed and mailed eQSL's
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
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
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).
Bill Moore NC1L
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.
Costas, write to Bill Moore at dxcc@a..., and express your feelingsto him directly. I agree that clarification is needed. A can of
worms has been opened by Bill Moore and now he needs to clarify what
he said and/or put it to rest.
email's appear to be inconsistent, when I
> don't believe he intends them to be that way. At this point, Ibelieve two things need to happen:
>ARRL regarding this.
> 2. The ARRL needs to agree that the steps laid out on the eQSLsite are correct, and that
> cards created that way will be accepted.interpreted it. (Correctly, in my opinion.)
printed by eQSL.CC and
mailed instead of being printed locally by the recipient? I thinkthat some type of signature
and/or rubber stamp endorsement at eQSL is essential.Service.