Re: hostmangling in new ircd

Andy Smith wrote:
> Another idea for the mangling:
> 
> There are 36 alphanumeric digits (0-9, a-z) which could be used for
> the mask but it currently only uses the 16 hex digits (0-9, a-f).
> 
> If the mask were converted from base 16 to base 36 then it would be
> smaller.  4 characters instead of 8.  IPs would be 17 characters
> long instead of 29.  Worth it?

Why not just <registerednickname>.blitzed ? Is that because then the
ircd cannot encrypt/decrypt back and forth between the two forms?

-- 
Mark

[email protected]