Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Xtra now Restricting Number of Email Recipients per Message

Reply
Thread Tools

Xtra now Restricting Number of Email Recipients per Message

 
 
Allan Marsh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2006
As the result of a call logged with Xtra regarding a community organisation
who were experiencing errors in their Exchange Server of "The connection was
dropped by the remote host" when attempting to deliver a newsletter email to
approx 130 of their members - I have confirmed that Xtra have begun
enforcing a limit of 100 email addresses per single email. Refer
http://xtra.co.nz/help/0,,4932-580622,00.html Apparently has been their
policy for some time, they have now begun to enforce it.

This will apply to any mail delivered using smtp.xtra.co.nz - server or mail
client.

Allan


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Fred Dagg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2006
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:40:11 +1200, "Allan Marsh" <(E-Mail Removed)>
exclaimed:

>As the result of a call logged with Xtra regarding a community organisation
>who were experiencing errors in their Exchange Server of "The connection was
>dropped by the remote host" when attempting to deliver a newsletter email to
>approx 130 of their members - I have confirmed that Xtra have begun
>enforcing a limit of 100 email addresses per single email. Refer
>http://xtra.co.nz/help/0,,4932-580622,00.html Apparently has been their
>policy for some time, they have now begun to enforce it.
>
>This will apply to any mail delivered using smtp.xtra.co.nz - server or mail
>client.


And, of course, soon you wont have any option BUT to send via
smtp.xtra, as they'll be blocking Port 25.

I notice that they say you can't send attachments over 2MB as well.

Good, eh? Welcome back to the dark ages.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2006
Allan Marsh wrote:
> As the result of a call logged with Xtra regarding a community organisation
> who were experiencing errors in their Exchange Server of "The connection was
> dropped by the remote host" when attempting to deliver a newsletter email to
> approx 130 of their members - I have confirmed that Xtra have begun
> enforcing a limit of 100 email addresses per single email. Refer
> http://xtra.co.nz/help/0,,4932-580622,00.html Apparently has been their
> policy for some time, they have now begun to enforce it.
>
> This will apply to any mail delivered using smtp.xtra.co.nz - server or mail
> client.
>
> Allan
>
>


and running a mail server off adsl is an issue.....so you cannot send
directly very well.....

So much for adsl.....

regards

Thing
 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2006
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:25:10 +1200, thingy wrote:

> So much for adsl.....


Lets see...

The price of ADSL has increased.

The maximum upload speed has increased, but at the same time contention
ratios have substantially worsened, and for most people on ADSL the upload
speed has not changed at all.

Traffic on port 25 in or out of Telecom's network is being blocked - the
sole exception being Telecom's own servers.

And we continue to see a steady decline in the quality of service provided
by Telecom's NNTP sever.

In short, Prices have increased while quality of service has markedly
decreased.

The Government should act immediately to carve up Telecom/Xtra and to
ensure that NZers actually get an unlimited, full-speed, low latecy,
affordable broadband service.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Martin Taylor, GM of platform strategy at Microsoft: "We found
that the Linux environment provided about 15 percent more end
user loss of productivity." - *provided MORE loss of productivity*

 
Reply With Quote
 
David
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2006
Fred Dagg wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:40:11 +1200, "Allan Marsh" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> exclaimed:
>
>> As the result of a call logged with Xtra regarding a community organisation
>> who were experiencing errors in their Exchange Server of "The connection was
>> dropped by the remote host" when attempting to deliver a newsletter email to
>> approx 130 of their members - I have confirmed that Xtra have begun
>> enforcing a limit of 100 email addresses per single email. Refer
>> http://xtra.co.nz/help/0,,4932-580622,00.html Apparently has been their
>> policy for some time, they have now begun to enforce it.
>>
>> This will apply to any mail delivered using smtp.xtra.co.nz - server or mail
>> client.

>
> And, of course, soon you wont have any option BUT to send via
> smtp.xtra, as they'll be blocking Port 25.
>
> I notice that they say you can't send attachments over 2MB as well.


WHAT? I rely on being able to send large (5-10MB) attachments all the
time. I guess it's time to change ISP...
>
> Good, eh? Welcome back to the dark ages.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2006
David wrote:
> Fred Dagg wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:40:11 +1200, "Allan Marsh" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> exclaimed:
>>
>>> As the result of a call logged with Xtra regarding a community
>>> organisation who were experiencing errors in their Exchange Server of
>>> "The connection was dropped by the remote host" when attempting to
>>> deliver a newsletter email to approx 130 of their members - I have
>>> confirmed that Xtra have begun enforcing a limit of 100 email
>>> addresses per single email. Refer
>>> http://xtra.co.nz/help/0,,4932-580622,00.html Apparently has been
>>> their policy for some time, they have now begun to enforce it.
>>>
>>> This will apply to any mail delivered using smtp.xtra.co.nz - server
>>> or mail client.

>>
>> And, of course, soon you wont have any option BUT to send via
>> smtp.xtra, as they'll be blocking Port 25.
>>
>> I notice that they say you can't send attachments over 2MB as well.

>
> WHAT? I rely on being able to send large (5-10MB) attachments all the
> time. I guess it's time to change ISP...
>>
>> Good, eh? Welcome back to the dark ages.


OK I take that back, it appears someone didn't read the text properly.
The 2MB limit only applies to their webmail interface.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2006
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:09:44 +1200, someone purporting to be David didst
scrawl:

> Fred Dagg wrote:

*SNIP*
>> I notice that they say you can't send attachments over 2MB as well.

>
> WHAT? I rely on being able to send large (5-10MB) attachments all the
> time. I guess it's time to change ISP...


Alternatively, you could learn what FTP is for! People who treat e-mail as
a file transfer system **** me off. I'm so glad I no longer have to
explain to customers why they're blocked from sending large (20+MB)
attachments.

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2006
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:53:57 +1200, Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:

> In short, Prices have increased while quality of service has markedly
> decreased.


Yep it all started in 1984 when Roger had some ideas which were put into
place.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2006
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:17:20 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:

> Alternatively, you could learn what FTP is for! People who treat e-mail as
> a file transfer system **** me off. I'm so glad I no longer have to
> explain to customers why they're blocked from sending large (20+MB)
> attachments.


Yes! Yes! and YES!

Gentle people, to send an e-mail increases the size of the file by approx
a third, which increases the load on the network and if everyone does it
then the load is high.

E-mail is about text, well it should be. if you wish to do something else,
eg trabsfer a file, then get the tool for it. Attachments are nothing more
than a lazy way of best practice.

Wish to shift a large file, put it on a FTP server and send the URL in the
e-mail.

BTW, FTP stands for File Transfer Protocol.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2006
Gordon wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:17:20 +1200, Matthew Poole wrote:
>
>> Alternatively, you could learn what FTP is for! People who treat e-mail as
>> a file transfer system **** me off. I'm so glad I no longer have to
>> explain to customers why they're blocked from sending large (20+MB)
>> attachments.

>
> Yes! Yes! and YES!
>
> Gentle people, to send an e-mail increases the size of the file by approx
> a third, which increases the load on the network and if everyone does it
> then the load is high.
>
> E-mail is about text, well it should be. if you wish to do something else,
> eg trabsfer a file, then get the tool for it. Attachments are nothing more
> than a lazy way of best practice.
>
> Wish to shift a large file, put it on a FTP server and send the URL in the
> e-mail.
>
> BTW, FTP stands for File Transfer Protocol.
>


But if you want to only send it to a single recipient, you've got to
admit attaching it to an email is handy. Perhaps the relevant standards
could be updated to allow binary data to be sent too.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Max recipients of mail message? Bobby Edward ASP .Net 1 01-04-2009 12:57 AM
backtrace forwarded email's recipients septer2006@hotmail.com Computer Security 0 05-23-2006 03:40 PM
Single email to multiple recipients .Net Newbie ASP .Net 2 07-01-2004 02:11 PM
Run your own Auction Site, Pay per click directory, Google groups email harvestor, Email spider now Auction software Python 0 06-26-2004 11:25 PM
Restricting Bandwidth troughput per second? Paul Cisco 2 02-06-2004 03:09 PM



Advertisments