Suggested size for Postal code, and changing the field attributes with cpyf -- MIDRANGE-L

Good News Everybody!

The new search engine is LIVE!

Please report any problems to david (at) midrange.com.

Subject: Suggested size for Postal code, and changing the field attributes with cpyf
From: Booth Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:03:39 -0500
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Suggested size for Postal code, and changing the field attributes with cpyf.

We keep postal codes in a variety of formats including alpha-5, numeric 5, numeric 5 + numeric 4, alpha 9.

Two questions:
1 - What is a generally accepted size * description today? (I recently received mail from the US Government with a zip code of 12345-0123000)
2 - Is it possible, with CPYF, to map those various formats to one common new format?

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Suggested size for Postal code, and changing the field attributes with cpyf , Glenn Ericson
Re: Suggested size for Postal code, and changing the field attributes with cpyf , Jim Essinger

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.