Xtra now Restricting Number of Email Recipients per Message

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Allan Marsh, Apr 6, 2006.

  1. Allan Marsh

    Allan Marsh Guest

    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
     
    Allan Marsh, Apr 6, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Allan Marsh

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:40:11 +1200, "Allan Marsh" <>
    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.
     
    Fred Dagg, Apr 7, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Allan Marsh

    thingy Guest

    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
     
    thingy, Apr 7, 2006
    #3
  4. 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*
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Apr 7, 2006
    #4
  5. Allan Marsh

    David Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:40:11 +1200, "Allan Marsh" <>
    > 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.
     
    David, Apr 7, 2006
    #5
  6. Allan Marsh

    David Guest

    David wrote:
    > Fred Dagg wrote:
    >> On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:40:11 +1200, "Allan Marsh" <>
    >> 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.
     
    David, Apr 7, 2006
    #6
  7. 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."
     
    Matthew Poole, Apr 7, 2006
    #7
  8. Allan Marsh

    Gordon Guest

    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.
     
    Gordon, Apr 7, 2006
    #8
  9. Allan Marsh

    Gordon Guest

    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.
     
    Gordon, Apr 7, 2006
    #9
  10. Allan Marsh

    David Guest

    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.
     
    David, Apr 7, 2006
    #10
  11. Allan Marsh

    PC Guest

    "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > 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.


    snip

    Sorry Mathew I think you are being unreasonable.
    The reality is a 'lot' of people have minimal knowledge about email
    attachment limits, no idea about files sizes let alone what 'FTP' means (or
    even exists) When they try and sent the 30MB of photos of the kids wedding
    to auntie flo in Birmingham, all they know is they successfully attached the
    photo's to the email and pressed send but their ISP wouldn't accept it.

    Today's users do have limited knowledge of the Internet's background
    workings just the same as a lot of people have minimal knowledge of how
    their car works. Does this mean they should not use the net/own a car?
    By expressing the 'need' for users to be technically competent enough to use
    FTP it would be equally incumbent for car owners to have the ability to do
    nuts & bolts repairs to their vehicle.

    Looking at it realistically just the same as motor cars developed to
    accomodate the skill level of their users, so I would propound the 'net' has
    to (will) change to accommodate it's users. Motor cars have developed many
    automatic systems and the technicalities of their workings are hidden behind
    a reasonably simple interface. Likewise the net will grow and met the users
    needs by presenting a simpler interface for sending 'the wedding photo's'
    without resort to the 'nuts & bolts' of large file transfer.

    My 2c
    Paul.
     
    PC, Apr 7, 2006
    #11
  12. On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:51:38 +1200, David wrote:

    > 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.


    The "relevant standards" are concerned with the transmission of clear text.

    Sending binary data through a system designed for clear text requires
    encoding binary data as clear text.

    What you are asking for is to convert a clear text email system into a
    binary file tranmission system - which is something it is not and should
    never be.

    What you really should do, as you have already been advised, is to put the
    file in question onto an FTP server and send via email the URL and access
    details to that file.

    It is not "convenient" to have large quantities of binary data being
    encoded and pushed through the email system. I can understand why
    Telecom is unwilling to have its email sytem clogged with binary
    attachments.

    I can also understand why Telecom would want to block emailed spam and
    viruses. Unfortunately Telecom is going about it the wrong way.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Apr 7, 2006
    #12
  13. On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 22:58:07 +1200, PC wrote:

    > Today's users do have limited knowledge of the Internet's background
    > workings just the same as a lot of people have minimal knowledge of how
    > their car works. Does this mean they should not use the net/own a car?
    > By expressing the 'need' for users to be technically competent enough to use
    > FTP it would be equally incumbent for car owners to have the ability to do
    > nuts & bolts repairs to their vehicle.


    That's fair enough.

    I think a lot more people thrashing their vehicles would be much more
    restrained and much less inclined to go too fast if they knew that only
    5mm of metal holds their wheels on.

    Likewise, people using the internet should know what they are actually
    doing.


    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*
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Apr 7, 2006
    #13
  14. Allan Marsh

    Kaiwai Guest

    On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 17:39 +1200, Gordon wrote:
    > 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.
    >


    Incorrect - they needed to give Telecom an overhaul, but give the
    election focus which politicians have, the chances of Telecom actually
    doing what was needed 20 years ago would never have taken place.

    Imagine you're an MP, Telecom NZ is owned by the government, and Telecom
    announces 20,000 jobs to be shed - yeah, try getting back into
    government after that one!

    What they should have done is sold off the 'retail' side, kept the
    network, and leased access to the network - the price is based on
    basically a 'grand plan' - in this case, 'generate enough money to
    upgrade the network as to allow ADSL2+ broadband, full speed to 70% of
    homes, and the remaining 30% to have access at atleast 60% of the full
    speed".

    To maintain a network, you don't need a 'profit motive', just some sort
    of 'goal' in which prices can be molded around.

    Matty
     
    Kaiwai, May 12, 2006
    #14
  15. Allan Marsh

    thingy Guest

    Kaiwai wrote:
    > On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 17:39 +1200, Gordon wrote:
    >
    >>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.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Incorrect - they needed to give Telecom an overhaul, but give the
    > election focus which politicians have, the chances of Telecom actually
    > doing what was needed 20 years ago would never have taken place.
    >
    > Imagine you're an MP, Telecom NZ is owned by the government, and Telecom
    > announces 20,000 jobs to be shed - yeah, try getting back into
    > government after that one!
    >
    > What they should have done is sold off the 'retail' side, kept the
    > network, and leased access to the network - the price is based on
    > basically a 'grand plan' - in this case, 'generate enough money to
    > upgrade the network as to allow ADSL2+ broadband, full speed to 70% of
    > homes, and the remaining 30% to have access at atleast 60% of the full
    > speed".
    >
    > To maintain a network, you don't need a 'profit motive', just some sort
    > of 'goal' in which prices can be molded around.
    >
    > Matty
    >


    I think experience is/has shown that profit seems to be about the best
    goal...

    ie an individual's desire to be better off (not necessarily money).

    Where you can have a level playing field, business competition is the
    best way IMHO. The problem is getting and keeping a level playing field.

    That is, with a level playing field generally the best
    ideas/company/organisation will usually win out over the competition.

    The problems are; 1) illegal cartels can form artificially restricting
    the market and holding up or increasing prices, 2) the best company
    tends to a monopolistic status as it gets ahead of the others and as it
    matures it can/does distorts/removes the level playing field to its
    advantage, thereby stopping and even better idea/company/organisation
    coming along and passing it.

    So the Government's job is to get and keep a reasonable level playing
    field and to break up any cartels & monopolies as they form.

    Standard Oil, AT&T, MS and now Telecom are three examples where
    effective monopolies have/are distorting the market, they have/should
    get broken up.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, May 12, 2006
    #15
  16. Allan Marsh

    thingy Guest

    thingy wrote:
    > Kaiwai wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 17:39 +1200, Gordon wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> Incorrect - they needed to give Telecom an overhaul, but give the
    >> election focus which politicians have, the chances of Telecom actually
    >> doing what was needed 20 years ago would never have taken place.
    >>
    >> Imagine you're an MP, Telecom NZ is owned by the government, and Telecom
    >> announces 20,000 jobs to be shed - yeah, try getting back into
    >> government after that one!
    >>
    >> What they should have done is sold off the 'retail' side, kept the
    >> network, and leased access to the network - the price is based on
    >> basically a 'grand plan' - in this case, 'generate enough money to
    >> upgrade the network as to allow ADSL2+ broadband, full speed to 70% of
    >> homes, and the remaining 30% to have access at atleast 60% of the full
    >> speed".
    >>
    >> To maintain a network, you don't need a 'profit motive', just some sort
    >> of 'goal' in which prices can be molded around.
    >>
    >> Matty
    >>

    >
    > I think experience is/has shown that profit seems to be about the best
    > goal...
    >
    > ie an individual's desire to be better off (not necessarily money).
    >
    > Where you can have a level playing field, business competition is the
    > best way IMHO. The problem is getting and keeping a level playing field.
    >
    > That is, with a level playing field generally the best
    > ideas/company/organisation will usually win out over the competition.
    >
    > The problems are; 1) illegal cartels can form artificially restricting
    > the market and holding up or increasing prices, 2) the best company
    > tends to a monopolistic status as it gets ahead of the others and as it
    > matures it can/does distorts/removes the level playing field to its
    > advantage, thereby stopping and even better idea/company/organisation
    > coming along and passing it.
    >
    > So the Government's job is to get and keep a reasonable level playing
    > field and to break up any cartels & monopolies as they form.
    >
    > Standard Oil, AT&T, MS and now Telecom are three examples where
    > effective monopolies have/are distorting the market, they have/should
    > get broken up.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >


    oops

    s/three/four

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, May 12, 2006
    #16
  17. 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
    >
    >

    Some years ago when I had a short spell of being connected via Telescums Xtra I
    asked a question in this very group that went along the lines of "Anyone know
    how many recipients Xtras Mail Server will crack before barfing or sending the
    Black Suits to see Me", well within two days of posting that I got a ring from
    Xtra Security telling me off for even thinking about it!!!

    There are many legitimate and valid reasons for having a mail server crack a
    big distribution list, clubs, double opt in news letters and so on, BCC
    Distribution lists have been used for ages and I wonder who Xtra think they are
    limiting us in our use.


    --
    >>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!

    ======================================================================
    | Local 38.2330S, 175.8670E |
    ======================================================================
     
    Collector»NZ, May 13, 2006
    #17
  18. Allan Marsh

    Don Hills Guest

    In article <>,
    thingy <> wrote:
    >
    >I think experience is/has shown that profit seems to be about the best
    >goal...
    >
    >ie an individual's desire to be better off (not necessarily money).


    Summed up as:
    "If you're not in business for fun or profit, you shouldn't be."

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
    preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286
     
    Don Hills, May 13, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jens Mander

    Per-to-Per is OK but no ICS

    Jens Mander, Jan 15, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    727
    Carey Holzman
    Jan 23, 2005
  2. Paul
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,726
  3. Frisbee®
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    1,160
  4. backtrace forwarded email's recipients

    , May 23, 2006, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    586
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    886
Loading...

Share This Page