<< I still don't understand why this (and like-minded print or FAX servers)
<< aren't addressed according to:
<< pager+4159408776(_at_)pagerserver(_dot_)tpc(_dot_)int
<< or even just
<< +4159408776(_at_)pagerserver(_dot_)tpc(_dot_)int
< Scaling. Your proposal makes every message go to thru one single machine,
< bringing it to it's knees. Now or tomorrow. Or yester- day.
Not hardly. Many implementations may force the messages to go through one
single machine, but that is not inherent in the address. AT&T Mail supports
a fax addressing scheme similar to that shown above, and it definitely does
NOT use a single machine to do its fax deliveries.
Tony Hansen
hansen(_at_)pegasus(_dot_)att(_dot_)com,
tony(_at_)attmail(_dot_)com
att!pegasus!hansen, attmail!tony