>>  AL> Why not David.Alger{at}1-321-200-0.fidonet.org
 >>  AL> That format is already widely used by FidoNet gateway programs.

 >>  PS> No, David.Alger{at}f200.n321.z1.fidonet.org is used.

 >> You're being a bit too quick with the absolute denials. You're mistaken.
 >> Yes the format you mention is used often, but it is not the only one.

 PS> Yes, I know the format is possible, but is it used ?
 PS> Where such an address will be sent ?
 PS> Is the "1-321-200-0" valid in the right of th "{at}" ?
 PS> Whith the other format there isn't any problem.

there is no problem with it on the right side of the {at} BECAUSE
 it is simply a subdomain of the rest of the right side...

  ie: joe.blow{at}1-3636-19-0.wplace.cssnet.sanford.nc.us

the above =WILL= come back to my system, wplace, and be processed by the
gate software i use... in this case, GIGO... which will readdress the
message to the fidonet node 1:3636/19.0 and put it in a FTN PKT file for my
mailer to deliver.

what's wrong with that?  in fact, at one time, i had the entire fidonet
network set up as a subdomain under me. no problems other than quite a bit
of traffic when word got out... yes, ALL 6 zones even... -=%-)

)\/(ark