Delivery failure
Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:54:03 +0200

Your message has encountered delivery problems
to local user filippo.
(Originally addressed to

User not known

Your message reads (in part):

Received: from (unverified []) by
(EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id <>
Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:54:03 +0200
Received: from ( []) by (NTMail 4.00.0020/NT6651.00.c89adb95) with ESMTP id za001070 for <> Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:50:51 +0100
Received: from [] by (NTMail 4.00.0020/NT6651.00.c89adb95) with ESMTP id dokaaaaa for <> Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:50:50 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 09:56:25 -0700
From: "Dale E. Reed Jr." <>
Organization: IEA Software, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Greene <>
Subject: Re: Channelized T1 vs. better technology
References: <000501bde56d$dc400120$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ListMember: []

Adam Greene wrote:
> Hi!
> I'm running an ISP with 650+ customers.
> I am currently putting in a second Channelized T1 (24 channels) into my PM3,
> and my phone company asked me if I want to sign up for a 3-year contract on
> those Channelized T1's. If I do, I save $50 per month on the price of each.
> That sounds attractive, but I don't want to commit myself to a technology
> that will be outmoded before the contract is up.
> Currently my telco doesn't offer ISDN.
> Does anyone have any advice as to whether there's a better technology I
> should be waiting for, or if these Channelized T1's are a rock-solid
> investment?

Just make sure there is a clause in your contract that allows you to
upgrade or change to equivalant or better technology w/out any
penalties. The telco shouldn't have a problem with it, since they are
going to be making money no matter what you get from them.

-- Dale E. Reed Jr.  (       IEA Software, Inc.      |  RadiusNT, Emerald, and NT FAQs Internet Solutions for Today  |