skipp025 wrote: >Re: Macro & Prefix formats for multi site programming > >In theory what Ed wrote is a very good idea... but... > >The fly in the repeater soup is when you need (for more than one >reason)to protect the command set from unauthorized commands. Once >your problem fly (user) understands the prefix and command structure >you're in deep kim-chi all the way through the system. > >If you live in a large Metro Area you quickly learn about problem >users and disgruntled club ex-control operators with dtmf pads and >way too much time on their hands. > >cheers, >skipp > > > Unfortunately, flies (disgruntled club ex-control operators) can affect either control scheme equally based on the fly having had access to the control codes (read knowledge of). Problem users without prior command structure knowledge actually have a higher probability of finding a valid DTMF command when pre access / site prefixing is not used as there are likely more sequences that do something somewhere.
Either control scheme should be supplemented with supervisory level commands that can lock down sites if / when a fly becomes problematic (and as Skipp said metro areas many times have lots of flies). Site prefixing (with supervisory lock down commands) is used by every medium to large network I know of. Having both control methods available allows the system management to choose whichever method they prefer. Not having the ability for site prefixing eliminates those controllers for applications where it is desired / implemented as part of the system structure. Ed Yoho WA6RQD
