I have been looking at Vonage (www.vonage.co.uk) but have just found another
company called Draytel (www.draytel.org) who do PAYG with no up-front fees.
Anyone here with them at the moment care to comment?
I know there are a load of VoIP providers out there but if I'm going to use
one I'd prefer to use one that doesn't tie me to my PC!
In article <owVLg.15150$r61.2674@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk >,
Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>I have been looking at Vonage (www.vonage.co.uk) but have just found another
>company called Draytel (www.draytel.org) who do PAYG with no up-front fees.
>Anyone here with them at the moment care to comment?
>
>I know there are a load of VoIP providers out there but if I'm going to use
>one I'd prefer to use one that doesn't tie me to my PC!
Why not buy an IP phone if you don't want to be tied to your PC?
Gordon Henderson wrote:
> In article <owVLg.15150$r61.2674@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk >,
> Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> I have been looking at Vonage (www.vonage.co.uk) but have just found
>> another
>> company called Draytel (www.draytel.org) who do PAYG with no up-front
>> fees.
>> Anyone here with them at the moment care to comment?
>>
>> I know there are a load of VoIP providers out there but if I'm going to
>> use
>> one I'd prefer to use one that doesn't tie me to my PC!
>
> Why not buy an IP phone if you don't want to be tied to your PC?
>
> Eg.
> http://www.voiptalk.org/products/Gra...+Budgetone+101
For that price I can join Vonage or Draytel and use my existing, DECT phone
:-/
> For that price I can join Vonage or Draytel and use my existing, DECT
> phone
> :-/
If it satisfies your requirements [which it appears to], then go for it.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
17:58:44 up 12 days, 2:03, 1 user, load average: 0.09, 0.12, 0.09
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
In article <VQWLg.15199$r61.11895@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk> ,
Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Gordon Henderson wrote:
>> In article <owVLg.15150$r61.2674@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk >,
>> Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I have been looking at Vonage (www.vonage.co.uk) but have just found
>>> another
>>> company called Draytel (www.draytel.org) who do PAYG with no up-front
>>> fees.
>>> Anyone here with them at the moment care to comment?
>>>
>>> I know there are a load of VoIP providers out there but if I'm going to
>>> use
>>> one I'd prefer to use one that doesn't tie me to my PC!
>>
>> Why not buy an IP phone if you don't want to be tied to your PC?
>>
>> Eg.
>> http://www.voiptalk.org/products/Gra...+Budgetone+101
>
>For that price I can join Vonage or Draytel and use my existing, DECT phone
>:-/
I presume you mean by buying an ATA to connect your existing DECT phone
into. But if you use your PC, you really ought to get a good headset
and thats going to costs you half as much as an ATA or a cheap IP phone,
so ...
Or by suggestion Draytel, do you mean that you have a Vigor router with a
phone socket on the back on it that you can plug your DECT phone into?
Give us more details, tell us what you really want and what you already
have, and maybe we can suggest something...
Gordon Henderson wrote:
> In article <VQWLg.15199$r61.11895@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk> ,
> Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Gordon Henderson wrote:
>>> In article <owVLg.15150$r61.2674@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk >,
>>> Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I have been looking at Vonage (www.vonage.co.uk) but have just found
>>>> another
>>>> company called Draytel (www.draytel.org) who do PAYG with no up-front
>>>> fees.
>>>> Anyone here with them at the moment care to comment?
>>>>
>>>> I know there are a load of VoIP providers out there but if I'm going to
>>>> use
>>>> one I'd prefer to use one that doesn't tie me to my PC!
>>>
>>> Why not buy an IP phone if you don't want to be tied to your PC?
>>>
>>> Eg.
>>> http://www.voiptalk.org/products/Gra...+Budgetone+101
>>
>> For that price I can join Vonage or Draytel and use my existing, DECT
>> phone
>> :-/
>
> I presume you mean by buying an ATA to connect your existing DECT phone
> into. But if you use your PC, you really ought to get a good headset
> and thats going to costs you half as much as an ATA or a cheap IP phone,
> so ...
>
> Or by suggestion Draytel, do you mean that you have a Vigor router with a
> phone socket on the back on it that you can plug your DECT phone into?
>
> Give us more details, tell us what you really want and what you already
> have, and maybe we can suggest something...
>
> Gordon
As I said, I DO NOT want to be tied to my PC. That's it!
With both Vonage and Draytel I can use my current DECT cordless phone either
by renting (with the former) or buying (with the latter) an ATA that will
plug into my existing router; a Netgear WRG614.
My other idea was to buy a new Router with a built-in VoIP adapter and sell
my current one on Ebay. I then don't need one off either company.
Thus spaketh Carl Waring:
> Gordon Henderson wrote:
>> In article <VQWLg.15199$r61.11895@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk> ,
>> Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Gordon Henderson wrote:
>>>> In article <owVLg.15150$r61.2674@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk >,
>>>> Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> I have been looking at Vonage (www.vonage.co.uk) but have just
>>>>> found another
>>>>> company called Draytel (www.draytel.org) who do PAYG with no
>>>>> up-front fees.
>>>>> Anyone here with them at the moment care to comment?
>>>>>
>>>>> I know there are a load of VoIP providers out there but if I'm
>>>>> going to use
>>>>> one I'd prefer to use one that doesn't tie me to my PC!
>>>>
>>>> Why not buy an IP phone if you don't want to be tied to your PC?
>>>>
>>>> Eg.
>>>> http://www.voiptalk.org/products/Gra...+Budgetone+101
>>>
>>> For that price I can join Vonage or Draytel and use my existing,
>>> DECT phone
>>> :-/
>>
>> I presume you mean by buying an ATA to connect your existing DECT
>> phone into. But if you use your PC, you really ought to get a good
>> headset and thats going to costs you half as much as an ATA or a
>> cheap IP
>> phone, so ...
>>
>> Or by suggestion Draytel, do you mean that you have a Vigor router
>> with a phone socket on the back on it that you can plug your DECT
>> phone into? Give us more details, tell us what you really want and
>> what you
>> already have, and maybe we can suggest something...
>>
>> Gordon
>
> As I said, I DO NOT want to be tied to my PC. That's it!
>
> With both Vonage and Draytel I can use my current DECT cordless phone
> either by renting (with the former) or buying (with the latter) an
> ATA that will plug into my existing router; a Netgear WRG614.
>
> My other idea was to buy a new Router with a built-in VoIP adapter
> and sell my current one on Ebay. I then don't need one off either
> company.
> Any clearer?
I use a Linksys PAP2 connected to my router, to the PAP2 I have
connected up my usual DECT cordless and corded phones, on this I use
VoIPStunt and Sipgate.
>
> As I said, I DO NOT want to be tied to my PC. That's it!
>
> With both Vonage and Draytel I can use my current DECT cordless phone
> either by renting (with the former) or buying (with the latter) an ATA that
> will plug into my existing router; a Netgear WRG614.
>
> My other idea was to buy a new Router with a built-in VoIP adapter and sell
> my current one on Ebay. I then don't need one off either company.
>
> Any clearer?
I think an unlocked ATA is your best bet - have a look at a
Sipura/Linksys SPA1001 for a start.
[Do you have the right to use the redyonder domain? If not, why arrange
to have mail directed there?]
On 2006-09-07, Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Gordon Henderson wrote:
>> Give us more details, tell us what you really want and what you
>> already have, and maybe we can suggest something...
>>
>> Gordon
>
> As I said, I DO NOT want to be tied to my PC. That's it!
An admirable sentiment. Many would concur.
> With both Vonage and Draytel I can use my current DECT cordless phone
> either by renting (with the former) or buying (with the latter) an ATA
> that will plug into my existing router; a Netgear WRG614.
I imagine you are aware the ATAs are locked to either Vonage or Draytel.
If that doesn't matter to you the Draytel one looks good value. The
service offering is not at all bad either and PAYG may suit your calling
habits better than Vonage's monthly payments. Both websites have
sufficient information for you to make a detailed comparison but you may
want to keep in mind that Vonage's network is closed whereas Draytel's
isn't.
> My other idea was to buy a new Router with a built-in VoIP adapter and
> sell my current one on Ebay. I then don't need one off either company.
That is one way to go. Or you could purchase an ATA for about 40 GBP to
use with your present router. Either way you would not be tied to a
single provider.
Carl Waring wrote:
> I have been looking at Vonage (www.vonage.co.uk) but have just found another
> company called Draytel (www.draytel.org) who do PAYG with no up-front fees.
> Anyone here with them at the moment care to comment?
>
> I know there are a load of VoIP providers out there but if I'm going to use
> one I'd prefer to use one that doesn't tie me to my PC!
I have been using Draytel for quite a few months now, very happy had no
outages with service etc. Free PSTN number from any area once you put
£20 credit on.
I use the FXS port on a Vigor Router connected to a spare trunk port on
a PBX - works great, the VigorTalk ATA is very good value but does need
the odd reboot, service would be more reliable with a decent VoIP
enabled router, ATA such as SPA-3000 or decent IP Phone.
In article <yR%Lg.15471$r61.7183@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk >,
Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>As I said, I DO NOT want to be tied to my PC. That's it!
>
>With both Vonage and Draytel I can use my current DECT cordless phone either
>by renting (with the former) or buying (with the latter) an ATA that will
>plug into my existing router; a Netgear WRG614.
>
>My other idea was to buy a new Router with a built-in VoIP adapter and sell
>my current one on Ebay. I then don't need one off either company.
>
>Any clearer?
Sure. So what I said earlier was valid, but it sounds like you're on a
very tight budget though. You'd probably be better off sticking to your
current router (it's fine), and buying an ATA than go through the hassle
of buying a new router & selling your current one. Then you have the means
to talk to any VoIP provider and not just Vonage (who'll sell/rent you a
locked ATA) or Draytel (fine, but not the best prices as I understand it)
However, ATAs are slightly more expensive than the cheap phones you can
get now! (but shop around and you might find something - eg.
>
>Carl Waring wrote:
>> I have been looking at Vonage (www.vonage.co.uk) but have just found another
>> company called Draytel (www.draytel.org) who do PAYG with no up-front fees.
>> Anyone here with them at the moment care to comment?
>>
>> I know there are a load of VoIP providers out there but if I'm going to use
>> one I'd prefer to use one that doesn't tie me to my PC!
>
>I have been using Draytel for quite a few months now, very happy had no
>outages with service etc. Free PSTN number from any area once you put
>£20 credit on.
>
>I use the FXS port on a Vigor Router connected to a spare trunk port on
>a PBX - works great, the VigorTalk ATA is very good value but does need
>the odd reboot, service would be more reliable with a decent VoIP
>enabled router, ATA such as SPA-3000 or decent IP Phone.
>
>regards
>Simon
With Draytel you are paying a minimun of £20/year to remain on the
silver tariff. If you were to get an unlocked ATA and go with www.voip.co.uk
then you'd pay the same, have free off-peak calls to UK geographicals
and peak calls to UK geographicals at 2p/call.
With an unlocked ATA you have a choice to move. With a locked ATA you
pay to stay with one company, if you move from that company your ATA
becomes a paperweight (unless you can unlock it of course).
"Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:edq7ap$255$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
> sufficient information for you to make a detailed comparison but you may
> want to keep in mind that Vonage's network is closed whereas Draytel's
> isn't.
Huh? I know what the term means, but can you put it in context for me.
Thanks.
[I see your're still irresponsibly using a domain in your From: header
you have no right to use.]
On 2006-09-08, Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:edq7ap$255$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
>> sufficient information for you to make a detailed comparison but you may
>> want to keep in mind that Vonage's network is closed whereas Draytel's
>> isn't.
>
> Huh? I know what the term means, but can you put it in context for me.
> Thanks.
You have the facility to make SIP calls to any other SIP network with
Draytel. Also, you can be contacted from other networks. On Vonage you
can only make SIP-to-SIP calls to other Vonage customers.
"Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:edreba$fm2$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
> [I see your're still irresponsibly using a domain in your From: header
> you have no right to use.]
>
> On 2006-09-08, Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Jono wrote:
> "Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:edreba$fm2$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
>> [I see your're still irresponsibly using a domain in your From: header
>> you have no right to use.]
>>
>> On 2006-09-08, Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Huh?
>
> Result of WHOIS query:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No match for "redyonder.co.uk".
>
> This domain name has not been registered.
>
> WHOIS lookup made at 11:13:59 08-Sep-2006
Brian wrote:
> [I see your're still irresponsibly using a domain in your From: header
> you have no right to use.]
>
> On 2006-09-08, Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:edq7ap$255$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> sufficient information for you to make a detailed comparison but you may
>>> want to keep in mind that Vonage's network is closed whereas Draytel's
>>> isn't.
>>
>> Huh? I know what the term means, but can you put it in context for me.
>> Thanks.
>
> You have the facility to make SIP calls to any other SIP network with
> Draytel. Also, you can be contacted from other networks. On Vonage you
> can only make SIP-to-SIP calls to other Vonage customers.
Thanks, Brian. Looks like Draytel might be the one to go with. I currently
use one.tel for my calls and usually spend less than a fiver a month on
calls, so to pay Vonage £7.99 pm seems a little extreme, even if it does
include all 01 calls.
Oh, and as mentioned elsewhere, the FROM: thing's a spamtrap :-)
"Carl Waring" <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yubMg.15687$r61.1795@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
>>> [I see your're still irresponsibly using a domain in your From: header
>>> you have no right to use.]
>>>
>>> On 2006-09-08, Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> Result of WHOIS query:
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> No match for "redyonder.co.uk".
>>
>> This domain name has not been registered.
>>
>> WHOIS lookup made at 11:13:59 08-Sep-2006
>
> It's called a SPAMTRAP :-)
I know.
I was querying Brian's objection to your use of it.
I suppose, you shouldn't use a domain that may at some point be allocated as
you could be storing up problems for the ultimate registrant.........
Jono wrote:
> "Carl Waring" <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:yubMg.15687$r61.1795@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
>
>>>> [I see your're still irresponsibly using a domain in your From: header
>>>> you have no right to use.]
>>>>
>>>> On 2006-09-08, Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> Result of WHOIS query:
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> No match for "redyonder.co.uk".
>>>
>>> This domain name has not been registered.
>>>
>>> WHOIS lookup made at 11:13:59 08-Sep-2006
>>
>> It's called a SPAMTRAP :-)
>
> I know.
> I was querying Brian's objection to your use of it.
Whoops! Sorry :-)
> I suppose, you shouldn't use a domain that may at some point be allocated
> as
> you could be storing up problems for the ultimate registrant.........
Possibly. However, I'm sure that "REMOVETHIS", etc. can be easily got around
by now :-)
"Al" <.@_.invalid> wrote in message
news:47k2g2p63ht626uhp07fsfcj9nnis4pfqc@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:34:38 GMT, Jono wrote:
>
>
>>I suppose, you shouldn't use a domain that may at some point be allocated
>>as
>>you could be storing up problems for the ultimate registrant.........
>
> Indeed, it can cause problems to the ultimate registrant when you
> illegally use a domain like say ...nothanksneverblueyonder.com
>
> lookup failed nothanksneverblueyonder.com
> Could not find an IP address for this domain name.
>
> Instead of storing up trouble for the ultimate registrant, why not use
> the allowable construct of:
>
> nothanksneverblueyonder.invalid
> ?
Well. Firstly, what are the chances that anyone would want "redyonder".
Don't forget the phrase is "... into the wild blue yonder." The colour red
doesn't come into it and would make no sense whatsoever :-)
Secondly, I don't quite understand your so-called "allowable construct" ? Do
you mean something like "blueyonder.invalid.co.uk"? If so, then I'm sure
that any respectable spammer might look for and remove stuff like the word
"invalid" in the same way as the earlier-mentioned "removethis".
I think I'll stick with what I have thanks. It's worked so far :-)
"Jono" <jono@NoThanksNeverBlueYonder.com> wrote in message
news:2HbMg.15695$r61.10769@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk
[snip]
> I suppose, you shouldn't use a domain that may at some
> point be allocated as you could be storing up problems
> for the ultimate registrant.........
There is a specific top level domain reserved for the purposes of spam
trapping - invalid - try it.
Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Jono" <jono@NoThanksNeverBlueYonder.com> wrote in message
> news:2HbMg.15695$r61.10769@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk
>
> [snip]
>
>> I suppose, you shouldn't use a domain that may at some
>> point be allocated as you could be storing up problems
>> for the ultimate registrant.........
>
> There is a specific top level domain reserved for the purposes of spam
> trapping - invalid - try it.
>
> Ivor
That being the case, I certainly *won't* be using it. If spammers know about
it, it's a fair bet they can easily circumvent it :-)
"Carl Waring" <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:HEeMg.15786$r61.12868@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk
> Ivor Jones wrote:
[snip]
> > There is a specific top level domain reserved for the
> > purposes of spam trapping - invalid - try it.
> >
> > Ivor
>
> That being the case, I certainly *won't* be using it. If
> spammers know about it, it's a fair bet they can easily
> circumvent it :-)
No, because DNS servers have no way of routing to it.
Ivor Jones expressed precisely :
> "Carl Waring" <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> news:HEeMg.15786$r61.12868@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk
>> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> > There is a specific top level domain reserved for the
>> > purposes of spam trapping - invalid - try it.
>> >
>> > Ivor
>>
>> That being the case, I certainly *won't* be using it. If
>> spammers know about it, it's a fair bet they can easily
>> circumvent it :-)
>
> No, because DNS servers have no way of routing to it.
I think his point is, if you use .invald, what's to stop a spammer
rewriting all its havested .invalid addresses as .co.uk &/or .com.
The whole point of his REDyonder address is that a person could make a
judgement & figure out that it's BLUE not RED.
On 2006-09-08, Jono <jono@NoThanksNeverBlueYonder.com> wrote:
>
> "Carl Waring" <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:yubMg.15687$r61.1795@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
>
>>>> [I see your're still irresponsibly using a domain in your From: header
>>>> you have no right to use.]
>>>>
>>>> On 2006-09-08, Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> Result of WHOIS query:
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> No match for "redyonder.co.uk".
>>>
>>> This domain name has not been registered.
>>>
>>> WHOIS lookup made at 11:13:59 08-Sep-2006
>>
>> It's called a SPAMTRAP :-)
>
> I know.
Arranging for spam to be delivered to a machine other than one you have
permission to use is a SPAMTRAP? The person receiving it might have
another name for it.
> I was querying Brian's objection to your use of it.
>
> I suppose, you shouldn't use a domain that may at some point be allocated as
> you could be storing up problems for the ultimate registrant.........
He does not control the redyonder domain, whether it exists or not. He
does not have permission to use it. It follows that neither he nor
anyone else has the right to direct unwanted mail there.
10 minutes ago the telephone number 02070997992 was unallocated to
anyone. Does that mean it is free for me to use?
On 2006-09-08, Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Jono wrote:
>> "Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:edreba$fm2$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> [I see your're still irresponsibly using a domain in your From: header
>>> you have no right to use.]
>>>
>>> On 2006-09-08, Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> Result of WHOIS query:
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> No match for "redyonder.co.uk".
>>
>> This domain name has not been registered.
>>
>> WHOIS lookup made at 11:13:59 08-Sep-2006
>
> It's called a SPAMTRAP :-)
On 2006-09-08, Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Jono wrote:
>> I suppose, you shouldn't use a domain that may at some point be
>> allocated as you could be storing up problems for the ultimate
>> registrant.........
> Possibly. However, I'm sure that "REMOVETHIS", etc. can be easily got around
> by now :-)
Having acknowledged you may impact on someone else's use of the internet
why continue with the practice?
On 2006-09-08, Carl Waring <carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Al" <.@_.invalid> wrote in message
> news:47k2g2p63ht626uhp07fsfcj9nnis4pfqc@4ax.com...
>>
>> Instead of storing up trouble for the ultimate registrant, why not use
>> the allowable construct of:
>>
>> nothanksneverblueyonder.invalid
>> ?
>
> Well. Firstly, what are the chances that anyone would want "redyonder".
This is not for you to judge or make a decision on. If you have any real
doubts about this your ISP is the authority to consult.
> Don't forget the phrase is "... into the wild blue yonder." The colour red
> doesn't come into it and would make no sense whatsoever :-)
Since when did domain names have to make sense, either in English or
another language? Did google make sense in 1996?
> Secondly, I don't quite understand your so-called "allowable construct" ? Do
> you mean something like "blueyonder.invalid.co.uk"? If so, then I'm sure
> that any respectable spammer might look for and remove stuff like the word
> "invalid" in the same way as the earlier-mentioned "removethis".
>
> I think I'll stick with what I have thanks. It's worked so far :-)
By definition, sending spam elsewhere is bound to work and, furthermore,
work to your advantage. It doesn't work to the advantage of the person
on the receiving end though.
On 2006-09-08, Jono <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid> wrote:
> Brian was thinking very hard :
Too true. It can be debilitating at times.
>
>>
>> 10 minutes ago the telephone number 02070997992 was unallocated to
>> anyone. Does that mean it is free for me to use?
>
> It would be pointless, though as no-one could actually guess the
> correct number to reach you on.
I should have been more detailed. The number will be used when filling
out forms on websites, questionaires and surveys and in any transaction
with double-glazing salespeople. In fact, any time I don't want to be
contacted I'll give out that number. Now what could happen when the
number is put into use?
The primary aim of using the redyonder domain is to avoid receiving
spam. A secondary aim is to give a rather lame hint as to the correct
domain in order to receive mail. The benefit is truly in one direction
only. My phone number example was constructed to illustrate that.
Vonage / Draytel 
Linear Mode
