|
Hi Aadu, Attached two Hamlog QSLs with the confirmed RDAs. In both cases only the first (PM-06 and SM-06) area got mydx credit. Checking RQ9F case it seems due to the fact I have QSO with the rest of the RDAs it is not confirmed (PM-14 and PM39). In case of UA3LNM/P SM-27 has QSO but with 2021 date but SM-17 does not even appear in the list. https://mydx.eu/?activator=UA3LNM&id=SM-17Do you have idea why? Seems to me correct QSLs. Thanks. 73! Csaba HA3LN
|
|
|
Csaba!
Both callsigns did not provide documents on work from the border of 3 districts, these logs were rejected.
73! RA3R
Roman
10.06.2022 19:19, HA3LN пишет:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hi Aadu,
Attached two Hamlog QSLs with the confirmed RDAs.
In both cases only the first (PM-06 and SM-06) area
got mydx credit.
Checking RQ9F case it seems due to the fact I have QSO with the rest of the RDAs it is not confirmed (PM-14 and PM39).
In case of UA3LNM/P SM-27 has QSO but with 2021 date but SM-17 does not even appear in the list.
https://mydx.eu/?activator=UA3LNM&id=SM-17
Do you have idea why?
Seems to me correct QSLs.
Thanks.
73!
Csaba HA3LN
|
|
|
...ah, got it, thanks Roman.
Same goes to the QSO with RU3KO from VR-07?
73!
Csaba
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2022-06-10 22:02, ra3r wrote: Csaba!
Both callsigns did not provide documents on work from the border of 3 districts, these logs were rejected.
73! RA3R
Roman
10.06.2022 19:19, HA3LN пишет:
Hi Aadu,
Attached two Hamlog QSLs with the confirmed RDAs.
In both cases only the first (PM-06 and SM-06) area
got mydx credit.
Checking RQ9F case it seems due to the fact I have QSO with the rest of the RDAs it is not confirmed (PM-14 and PM39).
In case of UA3LNM/P SM-27 has QSO but with 2021 date but SM-17 does not even appear in the list.
https://mydx.eu/?activator=UA3LNM&id=SM-17
Do you have idea why?
Seems to me correct QSLs.
Thanks.
73!
Csaba HA3LN
|
|
|
No, I can't answer here, send HQSL for analysis.
10.06.2022 23:05, HA3LN пишет:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
...ah, got it, thanks Roman.
Same goes to the QSO with RU3KO from VR-07?
73!
Csaba
On 2022-06-10 22:02, ra3r wrote:
Csaba!
Both callsigns did not provide documents on work from the border of 3 districts, these logs were rejected.
73! RA3R
Roman
10.06.2022 19:19, HA3LN пишет:
Hi Aadu,
Attached two Hamlog QSLs with the confirmed RDAs.
In both cases only the first (PM-06 and SM-06) area
got mydx credit.
Checking RQ9F case it seems due to the fact I have QSO with the rest of the RDAs it is not confirmed (PM-14 and PM39).
In case of UA3LNM/P SM-27 has QSO but with 2021 date but SM-17 does not even appear in the list.
https://mydx.eu/?activator=UA3LNM&id=SM-17
Do you have idea why?
Seems to me correct QSLs.
Thanks.
73!
Csaba HA3LN
|
|
|
...yeah, sorry, attached.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2022-06-10 22:06, ra3r wrote: No, I can't answer here, send HQSL for analysis.
10.06.2022 23:05, HA3LN пишет:
...ah, got it, thanks Roman.
Same goes to the QSO with RU3KO from VR-07?
73!
Csaba
On 2022-06-10 22:02, ra3r wrote:
Csaba!
Both callsigns did not provide documents on work from the border of 3 districts, these logs were rejected.
73! RA3R
Roman
10.06.2022 19:19, HA3LN пишет:
Hi Aadu,
Attached two Hamlog QSLs with the confirmed RDAs.
In both cases only the first (PM-06 and SM-06) area
got mydx credit.
Checking RQ9F case it seems due to the fact I have QSO with the rest of the RDAs it is not confirmed (PM-14 and PM39).
In case of UA3LNM/P SM-27 has QSO but with 2021 date but SM-17 does not even appear in the list.
https://mydx.eu/?activator=UA3LNM&id=SM-17
Do you have idea why?
Seems to me correct QSLs.
Thanks.
73!
Csaba HA3LN
|
|
|
Csaba!
I have been monitoring RU3KO for two days, unfortunately I do not know the reason why it does not sync with mydx.eu , on this occasion, it is necessary to contact the owner of Hamlog - Eugene R4AS.
73! RA3R
Roman
11.06.2022 0:09, HA3LN пишет:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
...yeah, sorry, attached.
On 2022-06-10 22:06, ra3r wrote:
No, I can't answer here, send HQSL for analysis.
10.06.2022 23:05, HA3LN пишет:
...ah, got it, thanks Roman.
Same goes to the QSO with RU3KO from VR-07?
73!
Csaba
On 2022-06-10 22:02, ra3r wrote:
Csaba!
Both callsigns did not provide documents on work from the border of 3 districts, these logs were rejected.
73! RA3R
Roman
10.06.2022 19:19, HA3LN пишет:
Hi Aadu,
Attached two Hamlog QSLs with the confirmed RDAs.
In both cases only the first (PM-06 and SM-06) area
got mydx credit.
Checking RQ9F case it seems due to the fact I have QSO with the rest of the RDAs it is not confirmed (PM-14 and PM39).
In case of UA3LNM/P SM-27 has QSO but with 2021 date but SM-17 does not even appear in the list.
https://mydx.eu/?activator=UA3LNM&id=SM-17
Do you have idea why?
Seems to me correct QSLs.
Thanks.
73!
Csaba HA3LN
|
|
|
...thanks Roman for checking.
Will reach out Eugene.
73!
Csaba
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2022-06-12 07:39, ra3r wrote: Csaba!
I have been monitoring RU3KO for two days, unfortunately I do not know the reason why it does not sync with mydx.eu , on this occasion, it is necessary to contact the owner of Hamlog - Eugene R4AS.
73! RA3R
Roman
11.06.2022 0:09, HA3LN пишет:
...yeah, sorry, attached.
On 2022-06-10 22:06, ra3r wrote:
No, I can't answer here, send HQSL for analysis.
10.06.2022 23:05, HA3LN пишет:
...ah, got it, thanks Roman.
Same goes to the QSO with RU3KO from VR-07?
73!
Csaba
On 2022-06-10 22:02, ra3r wrote:
Csaba!
Both callsigns did not provide documents on work from the border of 3 districts, these logs were rejected.
73! RA3R
Roman
10.06.2022 19:19, HA3LN пишет:
Hi Aadu,
Attached two Hamlog QSLs with the confirmed RDAs.
In both cases only the first (PM-06 and SM-06) area
got mydx credit.
Checking RQ9F case it seems due to the fact I have QSO with the rest of the RDAs it is not confirmed (PM-14 and PM39).
In case of UA3LNM/P SM-27 has QSO but with 2021 date but SM-17 does not even appear in the list.
https://mydx.eu/?activator=UA3LNM&id=SM-17
Do you have idea why?
Seems to me correct QSLs.
Thanks.
73!
Csaba HA3LN
|
|
|
