Date   

Question about adding including another ham

Phil Sikes <psikes@...>
 

Hello all, I have been truly enjoying learning and using DXLab for about a
week now. I feel good enough about my experience that I am ready to migrate
my wife's log books over from LOGic now too.

I have established 2 workspaces, one for my call and another for her call.
My main question is mostly a matter of sequence. After I open DXlab using
her workspace, when do I open a log file with her call and import the ADIF
file? My main concern is damaging or losing my own log file with about 9,000
Q's already there.

The second question concerns the call signs stored in the registry. Do they
get maintained in the workspace instead or will DXlab continue placing my
call in her log?

If anyone has accomplished this before I would love to hear from you on how
you went about the process.

BTW, this program beats the pants off LOGic!

Thanks - Phil N7UX

Kant's categorical imperative. 'Act only according to that maxim whereby you
can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without
contradiction.'

Immanuel Kant 1724-1804


Re: re lables

Jim Blanca <ke8g@...>
 

Hi Tony,

I use the Office Max 5160 labels and set the fonts to Arial 6. This allows
the header line and 6 lines of contacts per label.



Comes in handy when sending out cards to a station that you have worked on
multiple bands.



73 de Jim - KE8G



From: dxlab@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dxlab@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Anthony W. DePrato
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 11:58 AM
To: dxlab@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [dxlab] re lables





man what a great group. jim and joe thank you for the updates and
info. going to office depot now to get a box of lables..
73 Tony

Anthony W. DePrato WA4JQS
Since Sept 9th 1962
CQ DX HALL OF FAME # 39
DXCC HONOR ROLL
FOUNDER SOUTH SANDWICH ISLAND DX GROUP 1988
CALLS HELD
VP8BZL VP8SSI 3Y0PI ZD8JQS V31SS WA4JQS/ZS1 WA4JQS/KC4 WA4JQS/4K1
ZUT DE WA4JQS


re lables

Anthony W. DePrato
 

man what a great group. jim and joe thank you for the updates and info. going to office depot now to get a box of lables..
73 Tony

Anthony W. DePrato WA4JQS
Since Sept 9th 1962
CQ DX HALL OF FAME # 39
DXCC HONOR ROLL
FOUNDER SOUTH SANDWICH ISLAND DX GROUP 1988
CALLS HELD
VP8BZL VP8SSI 3Y0PI ZD8JQS V31SS WA4JQS/ZS1 WA4JQS/KC4 WA4JQS/4K1
ZUT DE WA4JQS


Invalid callsign problem

Ron W3ZV
 

I had a casual QSO with WD4LTF. Tried to log the QSO and got a red blinking "Call" next to the call box in the capture window. Checked QRZ and the call appears to be valid. After more than a little head scratching, I unchecked "Flag invalid callsign" and was able to log this contact.

1. Why is this call be flagged as invalid?
2. Is there is a simpler way to force the logging of a call? I can't come up with it if there is. Memory is not one of my best attributes any more.

Thanks
--
73 Ron W3ZV


Re: Avery labels question

Joe Subich, W4TV
 

Tony,

what i found in wiki states 1x2in 8161 and 5961 are 3 com labels
while 1x4 in 8160 and 5960 are 2 com. is this correct ?
Avery 5160/8160 are three column (1" h x 2 5/8" w) labels.
Avery 5161/8161 are two column (1" h x 4" w). I have both
setting on my desk.

1x2 =2 line and the 1x4 = 3 lines ?
No - both are 1" high and will handle the same number of lines/QSOs
if you do not check "Include QSL MGR & Pse/Tnx QSO" on the 3 column
labels.

also what Avery number does everyone use for qsl cards 4 per page ?
I use the 1" high labels (two column for my cards) for up to 5 QSOs
per label but I do not print the "bottom line" and have adjusted the
various font sizes (Confirmation= 10, Heading=8, QSO Information= 6)
to allow the extra QSOs to fit.

For the next batch of cards/labels, I plan to look at Avery 45008
labels (1 1/2" x 2 13/16") - three column labels that should allow
at least 8 QSOs with my current settings or 6 QSOs with slightly
larger printing.

73,

... Joe, W4TV


On 11/19/2011 10:18 AM, Anthony W. DePrato wrote:
well with 12K+ qso's uploaded to lotw and only 2.8k confirmed i have
been going thur my dxk log and found lots of direct or via qso's so i
want to print labels for these. what i found in wiki states 1x2in
8161 and 5961 are 3 com labels while 1x4 in 8160 and 5960 are 2 com.
is this correct ? seems like it should be the other way around 1x2
=2 line and the 1x4 = 3 lines ? guess i missed something anyway i
would like to print 3 qso's per label . which should i use. also what
Avery number does everyone use for qsl cards 4 per page ?
thanks for the help and WISHING everyone a great Thanksgiving
73 Tony


Anthony W. DePrato WA4JQS
Since Sept 9th 1962
CQ DX HALL OF FAME # 39
DXCC HONOR ROLL
FOUNDER SOUTH SANDWICH ISLAND DX GROUP 1988
CALLS HELD
VP8BZL VP8SSI 3Y0PI ZD8JQS V31SS WA4JQS/ZS1 WA4JQS/KC4 WA4JQS/4K1
ZUT DE WA4JQS



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links




Re: DXKeeper 9.7.5 QSL Stats Bug

Steve
 

Thanks Dave, I think it's straightened out now, but I sent you copies of the QSL reports to look at.

Thanks and 73!

Steve KU4BY

--- In dxlab@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" <aa6yq@...> wrote:

AA6YQ comments below
-----Original Message-----
From: dxlab@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dxlab@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Steve Bontempo
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 2:17 AM
To: dxlab@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [dxlab] DXKeeper 9.7.5 QSL Stats Bug


Hey Guys, I noticed something odd while checking my qsl statistics and was
wondering if this was a bug or if I might have something hosed up in
DXKeeper. My LOTW report columns are inverted.

For example, for 10M, I have uploaded 25 QSLs to LOTW. Of those 25, 21 have
confirmed. The simple calculation of 21/25 would show that I should be at
84% confirmed BUT DXKeeper is calculating it backwards and showing it as
being 119%, or 25/21. It appears to be doing this for all bands and modes
under the LOTW columns only.

I'm not sure when this changed but I know it used to work properly.

Please attach your "QSL Statistics" report to an email message and send
it to me via

aa6yq (at) ambersoft.com

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


RE AVERY QUESTION

Anthony W. DePrato
 

Thanks steve i see what they are talking about now number of lable rows per page thanks for the help
73 Tony

Anthony W. DePrato WA4JQS
Since Sept 9th 1962
CQ DX HALL OF FAME # 39
DXCC HONOR ROLL
FOUNDER SOUTH SANDWICH ISLAND DX GROUP 1988
CALLS HELD
VP8BZL VP8SSI 3Y0PI ZD8JQS V31SS WA4JQS/ZS1 WA4JQS/KC4 WA4JQS/4K1
ZUT DE WA4JQS


Re: Avery labels question

Steve L. <ve6vs@...>
 

Go to the Avery site

http://www.avery.ca/avery/en_ca/Templates-%26-Software

They have free software and full product information.

Steve VE6VS

--- In dxlab@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony W. DePrato" <wa4jqs@...> wrote:

well with 12K+ qso's uploaded to lotw and only 2.8k confirmed i have
been going thur my dxk log and found lots of direct or via qso's so i
want to print labels for these. what i found in wiki states 1x2in
8161 and 5961 are 3 com labels while 1x4 in 8160 and 5960 are 2 com.
is this correct ? seems like it should be the other way around 1x2
=2 line and the 1x4 = 3 lines ? guess i missed something anyway i
would like to print 3 qso's per label . which should i use. also what
Avery number does everyone use for qsl cards 4 per page ?
thanks for the help and WISHING everyone a great Thanksgiving
73 Tony


Anthony W. DePrato WA4JQS
Since Sept 9th 1962
CQ DX HALL OF FAME # 39
DXCC HONOR ROLL
FOUNDER SOUTH SANDWICH ISLAND DX GROUP 1988
CALLS HELD
VP8BZL VP8SSI 3Y0PI ZD8JQS V31SS WA4JQS/ZS1 WA4JQS/KC4 WA4JQS/4K1
ZUT DE WA4JQS


LZ Contest

Paul M Dunphy
 

I see the LZ Contest is not supported by DXK in terms of a Cabrillo export. Is there any other contest I can pick that will output the region (oblast) and my zone? I can use that and edit the header of the resultant file to fit the LZ Contest. Not being a serious contester, I don't have N1MM installed. DXK has been fine for the bit of dabbling I do -- just looking for a way to get a proper Cabrillo file from it.

73, Paul VE1DX


Avery labels question

Anthony W. DePrato
 

well with 12K+ qso's uploaded to lotw and only 2.8k confirmed i have been going thur my dxk log and found lots of direct or via qso's so i want to print labels for these. what i found in wiki states 1x2in 8161 and 5961 are 3 com labels while 1x4 in 8160 and 5960 are 2 com. is this correct ? seems like it should be the other way around 1x2 =2 line and the 1x4 = 3 lines ? guess i missed something anyway i would like to print 3 qso's per label . which should i use. also what Avery number does everyone use for qsl cards 4 per page ?
thanks for the help and WISHING everyone a great Thanksgiving
73 Tony


Anthony W. DePrato WA4JQS
Since Sept 9th 1962
CQ DX HALL OF FAME # 39
DXCC HONOR ROLL
FOUNDER SOUTH SANDWICH ISLAND DX GROUP 1988
CALLS HELD
VP8BZL VP8SSI 3Y0PI ZD8JQS V31SS WA4JQS/ZS1 WA4JQS/KC4 WA4JQS/4K1
ZUT DE WA4JQS


Re: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay email

ART SEARLE <w2nra@...>
 

At this point I have 2 unprocessed LotW uploads that go back 8 and 10 days with 6 later uploads processed. So they are obviously not processing uploads in order. I strongly recommend that we wait a while before re-uploading past LotW batches. This will give them more time to catch up and to address and correct the upload problem.

I noticed that if you go to the Your Account tab on the LotW website and click on Your Activity, it lists all your processed uploads. The date listed is not your upload date. It is ARRL's processing date. If you click on an upload link, it lists the name of the file that they use. Obviously they do not use the file name you gave it when you uploaded.

73, Art W2NRA

On Nov 18, 2011, at 4:58 PM, Robert Chudek - K0RC wrote:

This was the scenario that came to my mind when I first read the ARRL
instructions. Someone is manually purging older (identical looking) file
names from the queue.

Several years ago I chose to manually upload my tq8's with unique and
descriptive names so I can track them in the "Your Account Activity"
listing.

Last month my original 1,300+ QSO tq8 for CQWW was uploaded a couple
hours after the contest (10/30/2011). It hasn't processed yet. I have
not reloaded it. I was not told to reload it. But I did manually load a
153 QSO WAE RTTY log since then and it was processed within 50 hours.

"It would be nice" if ARRL would just tell us what they are doing. I can
live with "we've deleted logs from the queue and if you have waited 15
days, consider your log to be in the bit bucket."

But that's just me...

73 de Bob - K├śRC in MN
----------------------------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay email

Larry Knain
 

I would be surprised if the local file name is used for anything other
than to help the file sender identify the file. If a sender sends more than
pne file of the same name then it is the sender's problem to figure out
which file was actually processed if looking at "Your Activity" on the
LoTW website.

73, Larry W6NWS

----- Original Message -----
From: AB2ZY
To: dxlab@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 9:44 PM
Subject: [dxlab] Re: Fwd: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay email



The local filename that is uploaded has nothing to do with how the file is processed by the LoTW.

"Signing" your upload is very similar to what happens when you exchange your credit card information with a vendor via https. The mechanism in that case is public key encryption. The vendor "tells" everyone that wants to send sensitive information to them how to encrypt the message so that only they are able to decrypt it. Think of it as a box with two keys. One key (the public key) locks the box and the other (the private key) opens it. You give anyone who wants it a lock key, but only you keep the unlock key.

The process is basically reversed with TrustedQSL. The lock key in this case is private and was distributed to you via the postcard when you signed up (I've simplified significantly for thesake of clarity). When the ARRL opens the file, they are reasonable sure that only you could have sent it.

The information needed for LoTW to process the transaction is INSIDE the file. I'm quite sure that once the file is opened there is no need for LoTW to care what the original filename was.

Al
AB2ZY

--- In dxlab@yahoogroups.com, Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc@...> wrote:
>
> This was the scenario that came to my mind when I first read the ARRL
> instructions. Someone is manually purging older (identical looking) file
> names from the queue.
>


Re: DXKeeper 9.7.5 QSL Stats Bug

Dave AA6YQ
 

AA6YQ comments below
-----Original Message-----
From: dxlab@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dxlab@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Steve Bontempo
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 2:17 AM
To: dxlab@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [dxlab] DXKeeper 9.7.5 QSL Stats Bug


Hey Guys, I noticed something odd while checking my qsl statistics and was
wondering if this was a bug or if I might have something hosed up in
DXKeeper. My LOTW report columns are inverted.

For example, for 10M, I have uploaded 25 QSLs to LOTW. Of those 25, 21 have
confirmed. The simple calculation of 21/25 would show that I should be at
84% confirmed BUT DXKeeper is calculating it backwards and showing it as
being 119%, or 25/21. It appears to be doing this for all bands and modes
under the LOTW columns only.

I'm not sure when this changed but I know it used to work properly.

Please attach your "QSL Statistics" report to an email message and send
it to me via

aa6yq (at) ambersoft.com

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


DXKeeper 9.7.5 QSL Stats Bug

Steve
 

Hey Guys, I noticed something odd while checking my qsl statistics and was wondering if this was a bug or if I might have something hosed up in DXKeeper. My LOTW report columns are inverted.

For example, for 10M, I have uploaded 25 QSLs to LOTW. Of those 25, 21 have confirmed. The simple calculation of 21/25 would show that I should be at 84% confirmed BUT DXKeeper is calculating it backwards and showing it as being 119%, or 25/21. It appears to be doing this for all bands and modes under the LOTW columns only.

I'm not sure when this changed but I know it used to work properly.

Any ideas?

Thanks and 73!

Steve KU4BY


Re: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay email

AB2ZY
 

The local filename that is uploaded has nothing to do with how the file is processed by the LoTW.

"Signing" your upload is very similar to what happens when you exchange your credit card information with a vendor via https. The mechanism in that case is public key encryption. The vendor "tells" everyone that wants to send sensitive information to them how to encrypt the message so that only they are able to decrypt it. Think of it as a box with two keys. One key (the public key) locks the box and the other (the private key) opens it. You give anyone who wants it a lock key, but only you keep the unlock key.

The process is basically reversed with TrustedQSL. The lock key in this case is private and was distributed to you via the postcard when you signed up (I've simplified significantly for thesake of clarity). When the ARRL opens the file, they are reasonable sure that only you could have sent it.

The information needed for LoTW to process the transaction is INSIDE the file. I'm quite sure that once the file is opened there is no need for LoTW to care what the original filename was.

Al
AB2ZY

--- In dxlab@yahoogroups.com, Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc@...> wrote:

This was the scenario that came to my mind when I first read the ARRL
instructions. Someone is manually purging older (identical looking) file
names from the queue.


Re: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay email

Richard B Drake
 

I'm shure their database isn't a flat file but I bet the initial temporary file is just a copy of your tq8 file.

73, Ricb W3ZJ

Sent from my Kindle Fire

_____________________________________________
From: iain macdonnell - N6ML <ar@dseven.org>
Sent: Fri Nov 18 18:01:02 EST 2011
To: dxlab@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [dxlab] Fwd: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay email


Well, clearly they "see" the "filename" (really it's a "name" field in
an HTML form that they see), because it appears in "Your Activity". I
wouldn't expect that they store the logs in flat files.

~iain / N6ML


On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Richard B Drake <rich@w3zj.com> wrote:



I would be surprised if ARRL used your file name for their copy. Since many users could use the same name this would lead to conflicts on their end.

73, Rich W3ZJ

Sent from my Kindle Fire

_____________________________________________
From: iain macdonnell - N6ML <ar@dseven.org>
Sent: Fri Nov 18 17:34:24 EST 2011

To: dxlab@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [dxlab] Fwd: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay email

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@ambersoft.com> wrote:



AA6YQ comments below
-----Original Message-----
From: dxlab@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dxlab@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
iain macdonnell - N6ML
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 5:09 PM
To: dxlab@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [dxlab] Fwd: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay
email

snip<
Even if it's not the case, I think it would be good to including a
timestamp in the filename - then we could easily compare the upload
time to the processing time under "Your Activity", as Bob said. Do you
see any reason NOT to include the timestamp (other than development
effort) ?

Yes: a ton of upload files would then accumulate in each user's DXKeeper
folder, requiring users to perform manual garbage collection. "Automate
that", you say? That would require DXKeeper to give the user control over
how many to retain, which means more Complexity, which starts with C which
rhymes with T which stands for Trouble. (I'm evidently in "reference old
movies" mode today).
I don't know how you implemented RFC-1867, but it seems like there
shouldn't be any requirement for the name of the file on disk to be
the same as the name you specify in the HTML form......

Just a suggestion anyway....

~iain / N6ML

_____________________________________________

Yahoo! Groups Links




_____________________________________________


Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay email

iain macdonnell - N6ML
 

Well, clearly they "see" the "filename" (really it's a "name" field in
an HTML form that they see), because it appears in "Your Activity". I
wouldn't expect that they store the logs in flat files.

~iain / N6ML

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Richard B Drake <rich@w3zj.com> wrote:



I would be surprised if ARRL used your file name for their copy. Since many users could use the same name this would lead to conflicts on their end.

73, Rich W3ZJ

Sent from my Kindle Fire

_____________________________________________
From: iain macdonnell - N6ML <ar@dseven.org>
Sent: Fri Nov 18 17:34:24 EST 2011

To: dxlab@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [dxlab] Fwd: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay email

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@ambersoft.com> wrote:



AA6YQ comments below
-----Original Message-----
From: dxlab@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dxlab@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
iain macdonnell - N6ML
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 5:09 PM
To: dxlab@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [dxlab] Fwd: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay
email

snip<
Even if it's not the case, I think it would be good to including a
timestamp in the filename - then we could easily compare the upload
time to the processing time under "Your Activity", as Bob said. Do you
see any reason NOT to include the timestamp (other than development
effort) ?

Yes: a ton of upload files would then accumulate in each user's DXKeeper
folder, requiring users to perform manual garbage collection. "Automate
that", you say? That would require DXKeeper to give the user control over
how many to retain, which means more Complexity, which starts with C which
rhymes with T which stands for Trouble. (I'm evidently in "reference old
movies" mode today).
I don't know how you implemented RFC-1867, but it seems like there
shouldn't be any requirement for the name of the file on disk to be
the same as the name you specify in the HTML form......

Just a suggestion anyway....

~iain / N6ML

_____________________________________________

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay email

Richard B Drake
 

I would be surprised if ARRL used your file name for their copy. Since many users could use the same name this would lead to conflicts on their end.

73, Rich W3ZJ

Sent from my Kindle Fire

_____________________________________________
From: iain macdonnell - N6ML <ar@dseven.org>
Sent: Fri Nov 18 17:34:24 EST 2011
To: dxlab@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [dxlab] Fwd: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay email


On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@ambersoft.com> wrote:



AA6YQ comments below
-----Original Message-----
From: dxlab@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dxlab@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
iain macdonnell - N6ML
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 5:09 PM
To: dxlab@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [dxlab] Fwd: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay
email

snip<
Even if it's not the case, I think it would be good to including a
timestamp in the filename - then we could easily compare the upload
time to the processing time under "Your Activity", as Bob said. Do you
see any reason NOT to include the timestamp (other than development
effort) ?

Yes: a ton of upload files would then accumulate in each user's DXKeeper
folder, requiring users to perform manual garbage collection. "Automate
that", you say? That would require DXKeeper to give the user control over
how many to retain, which means more Complexity, which starts with C which
rhymes with T which stands for Trouble. (I'm evidently in "reference old
movies" mode today).
I don't know how you implemented RFC-1867, but it seems like there
shouldn't be any requirement for the name of the file on disk to be
the same as the name you specify in the HTML form......

Just a suggestion anyway....

~iain / N6ML


_____________________________________________


Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay email

Dave AA6YQ
 

+++AA6YQ comments below

-----Original Message-----
From: dxlab@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dxlab@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
iain macdonnell - N6ML
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 5:34 PM
To: dxlab@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [dxlab] Fwd: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay
email


On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@ambersoft.com> wrote:



AA6YQ comments below
-----Original Message-----
From: dxlab@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dxlab@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
iain macdonnell - N6ML
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 5:09 PM
To: dxlab@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [dxlab] Fwd: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay
email

snip<
Even if it's not the case, I think it would be good to including a
timestamp in the filename - then we could easily compare the upload
time to the processing time under "Your Activity", as Bob said. Do you
see any reason NOT to include the timestamp (other than development
effort) ?

Yes: a ton of upload files would then accumulate in each user's
DXKeeper
folder, requiring users to perform manual garbage collection. "Automate
that", you say? That would require DXKeeper to give the user control over
how many to retain, which means more Complexity, which starts with C which
rhymes with T which stands for Trouble. (I'm evidently in "reference old
movies" mode today).
I don't know how you implemented RFC-1867, but it seems like there
shouldn't be any requirement for the name of the file on disk to be
the same as the name you specify in the HTML form......

Just a suggestion anyway....

+++Let's see what Mike K1MK has to say.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


Re: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay email

iain macdonnell - N6ML
 

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@ambersoft.com> wrote:



AA6YQ comments below
-----Original Message-----
From: dxlab@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dxlab@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
iain macdonnell - N6ML
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 5:09 PM
To: dxlab@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [dxlab] Fwd: [ARRL-LOTW] lotw-help response to 16-day delay
email

snip<
Even if it's not the case, I think it would be good to including a
timestamp in the filename - then we could easily compare the upload
time to the processing time under "Your Activity", as Bob said. Do you
see any reason NOT to include the timestamp (other than development
effort) ?

Yes: a ton of upload files would then accumulate in each user's DXKeeper
folder, requiring users to perform manual garbage collection. "Automate
that", you say? That would require DXKeeper to give the user control over
how many to retain, which means more Complexity, which starts with C which
rhymes with T which stands for Trouble. (I'm evidently in "reference old
movies" mode today).
I don't know how you implemented RFC-1867, but it seems like there
shouldn't be any requirement for the name of the file on disk to be
the same as the name you specify in the HTML form......

Just a suggestion anyway....

~iain / N6ML

109381 - 109400 of 208031