Hello Steven.

24 Oct 02 21:41, you wrote to me:

 RVR>> Hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but the listing is incorrect
 RVR>> according to FTSC standards. However it does conform to a Zone 1
 RVR>> standard which may or may not have been authorised by the Z1C (and
 RVR>> thus overriding the FTSC standard).

 SH> You can always tell my RC.  I don't normally tell him what to do.

I doubt he would listen to me either :-)

 RVR>> That difference in standards is the 1-000-000-000 phone number.

 SH> Damn.  I rather liked that.:-)

Got a static IP? If so, easily fixed :-)

 RVR>> Also IBN:northof60.tzo.com is not required as you already have
 RVR>> your IP address in the system name field so you really only need
 RVR>> the IBN flag without any further info.

 SH> I've thought about that but I do vaguely recall that some people don't
 SH> like IBN flags without further information.  Apart from that, one can
 SH> argue that what is in the system name field is the system name and not
 SH> the IP address which appears in the IBN field.  Can I help it that the
 SH> two are identical?:-)

Its superfluous and unecessary, the BBS name field (where it also exists) is
all you need. Otherwise its like a POTS node listing their dialup number
twice.

Cheers,
        Rick

... NAK NAK who's there? S#j8)&!k NO CARRIER

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7 - Debian/GNU