I received a message from eQSL about an SWL entry looking for confirmation.

From what I'm reading, the person included all the relevent information (He told me about the date and time he was listening, and who I was talking to at the time). The problem is that if I confirm it, I apparently am required to create a QSO in my own log to match it.

This is a problem.

I have no interest or desire to create a QSO in my log with a person I did not actually speak to. I'm glad he heard me, and I'd like to acknowledge it, but if it means creating a bunch of entries for people I haven't actually had any direct contact with, then that's an issue.

And I'm pretty sure if I were to create the QSO, it would be sync'd back to my local logger, which would then reject it because IZxxxxSWL is not a valid callsign format.

Is there something I'm missing?

---

N1RKR Eric Tingley

Hi, when you manually confirm an SWL report it will indeed create a matching entry in your outbox.

As far as syncing back to your logger, it depends on the logging program. They should be using the API to download, for inbox the API is called DownloadInBox.cfm.

Part of each record downloaded is a flag "APP_EQSL_SWL" that indicates it is SWL, if the logging program is looking for that flag it can skip those entries. You could ask the author of your logging program if he looks at that field or not.

---

73, Dave - VA3KAB

Hello all,
I too am having this problem, except from a licensed ham sending me SWL reports.
If I confirm the SWL report it will in effect confirm that I had a QSO with the station, which I did not. It seems that is a flaw in the system that allows licensed hams to receive confirmations of QSOs when in actuallity they only sent a SWL report.
The info on my card which is generated even says "Confirming 2-way QSO with XXXXX Band XXX TIME XXXX" etc. The only way I've been trying to handle this is to put in comments..."Thanks for SWL report".
What's happening here???? Is this the way it's supposed to work??
Thanks Joe k0ivk

---

K0IVK Joe Hill

A licensed ham should not send an SWL report from his ham account for that very reason, if you confirm it you will be confirming a QSO which did not happen. If he wants to send SWL reports he should create an SWL account, there are a few hams in the system that have done that.

Please reject that eQSL. Also, send me an email to va3kab@eqsl.cc and tell me who it was, I will put a warning flag on his account.

---

73, Dave - VA3KAB

Seems the problem still exists until someone complains.
If I was an uninformed ham who had fallen into this trap, I would not appreciate receiving a "warning flag"
If EQsl is going to continue support for SWLs the problem should be fixed.
I will just not confirm any SWL reports until the problem is actually addressed.
73 Joe k0ivk

---

K0IVK Joe Hill

It is not a problem when an SWL sends you a report. If you don't want to confirm legit SWL reports from SWL accounts, that is up to you.

Just for the record, in all the time I've been here I have never received an SWL report from a ham. Not saying it doesn't happen, just that it is very rare.

---

73, Dave - VA3KAB

I NEVER received a SWL report from March 1979 till now on CW or SSB QSOs.
A year ago I started using the JT65 mode. Since then, in less than a year, I have received 12 SWL reports on JT65 reception. JT65 is an easy mode to monitor, almost any portable RX capable of SSB reception, will receive JT-65 and the software will easily decode it.
I myself often SWL using the Hack Green SDR RX on web sdr.org with just a microphone in front of my speakers, and it works great.(using JT65 HF or WSJT-X software).
73, Joe k0ivk

---

K0IVK Joe Hill

When I confirm a SWL report here, I write "SWL" in the signal report field, so if it syncs back to my log, I can identify it immediately.

---

73 de
VE3OIJ Darin Cowan