Subj : Nodelist Phone Field (consistency?)
To   : Ozz Nixon
From : Carol Shenkenberger
Date : Thu Jul 05 2018 07:11 pm

  Re: Nodelist Phone Field (consistency?)
  By: Ozz Nixon to All on Tue Jun 19 2018 09:05 pm

 ON> Hello All,

 ON> I am not sure whom I should be addressing with this suggestion/question. 
 ON> Nick sent me here, so my question:

 ON> Instead of using -Unpublished- for the phone field for a lot of the unlist
 ON>  or TCP based systems, and in other zones we are using 000-0-0-0-0, why
 ON> not use 000-0-0-0-0 for both 000-0-0-0-0 and -Unpublished-? Since we
 ON> (Fido) have always been about optmization and small as possible node list
 ON> lines ... this proposal would save us 2 bytes on every line currently
 ON> yielding -Unpublished-. This weeks node list has 1024 -Unpublished-
 ON> enrties, this switch would literally shrink the uncompressed nodelist by
 ON> 2kb.

Hi Ozz, 

Sorry for the delay.  The 000- set was an interum gap used for ION listing of
an NC and others so that it gave a STATIC blockable number that Z3 could use.

See, their verson of '911' is '000'.  As nodelisting of IONs took off, this
caused issues in Z3 with new sysops dialing their emergency services.  Z1 had
the same issues with 911 but there wre not many to deal with listed like that. 
Z1 however had thousands.

As Makenl developed, we were able to have nodelists with -Unpublished- on NC's
and RC's and so on.  It took a little time for this to be accepted so there was
a delay in implementation.  Z6 lead the charge and put in the 000-0-0-0-0
'standard' while notifying Z3 to make it a stadard block. Z1 followed within a
week as I recall as some other zones.  

One of the zones took a bit to resolve some technical issues and now, we can
generate a clean nodelist across all with no danger of dialing the
Australian/New Zeland emergency line by accident.

We don't care about 2 bytes.  ;-)  Not this time.

  xxcarol
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS telnet://shenks.synchro.net (1:275/100)

.