Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft's Office365 Limits Emails To 500 Recipients

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the he's-not-heavy-he's-my-recipient dept.

Cloud 183

suraj.sun writes "ZDNet's Ed Bott warns small businesses that if you sign up with Microsoft's Office 365, make sure you read the fine print carefully as an obscure clause in the terms of service limits the number of recipients you're allowed to contact in a day, which could affect the business very badly. Office 365's small business accounts (P1 plan) are limited to 500 recipients per 24 hours and enterprise accounts are limited to 1500. That's a limitation of 500 recipients during a single day. And the limitation doesn't apply to unique recipients. It's not hard to imagine scenarios in which a small business can bump up against that number."

cancel ×

183 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well this is some artificial bullshit. (1)

orphiuchus (1146483) | about 2 years ago | (#37805550)

There aren't really a lot of good things to say about this.

Re:Well this is some artificial bullshit. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#37805730)

There aren't really a lot of good things to say about this.

It might reduce some of the corporate junk mail we get.

Re:Well this is some artificial bullshit. (1)

digitig (1056110) | about 2 years ago | (#37805878)

Doubt it. There are plenty of other tools for spammers to use.

Re:Well this is some artificial bullshit. (5, Insightful)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#37805898)

If you're a spam cannon you're not using Office to blast those emails, if you have half a brain. A simple spam mill is using a linux MTA and a perl script connected to a MySQL db filled with culled email lists. This will have not effect on spam. I seriously doubt that's the intent with this stupid limitation.

Re:Well this is some artificial bullshit. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37806118)

You seem to know so much about...your own setup, Mr. Ballmer?

Re:Well this is some artificial bullshit. (2)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#37806408)

The OP referred to the limitation as "stupid". Why would Ballmer refer to any feature of a Microsoft product as "stupid"? I think you may have misread the OP. The limitation is just a marketing tactic to get growing businesses that start on P1 to upgrade to enterprise. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:Well this is some artificial bullshit. (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#37805770)

As I read it ("The maximum number of recipients that can receive e-mail messages sent from a single cloud-based mailbox in a 24 hour period."), this is a 500 recipient/day limit for each individual mailbox, not the entire account. Unless "mailbox" changes meaning when it's combined by the "cloud" buzzword.

Re:Well this is some artificial bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805794)

So? You correspond with one mailbox and when you reach the limit you change your mailbox to continue your correspondence? Cool, Mr. Smith wrote me today and later a Mr. Smith-2 took over?

Re:Well this is some artificial bullshit. (4, Informative)

canajin56 (660655) | about 2 years ago | (#37806394)

Yes, that is what the documentation says. But Microsoft tech support says "per organization", and the people who had the problem said that when they hit the limit, the entire company was shut off, not just the one employee.

Re:Well this is some artificial bullshit. (1)

turbidostato (878842) | about 2 years ago | (#37806624)

"Unless "mailbox" changes meaning when it's combined by the "cloud" buzzword."

It must be.

In my book a "mailbox" has nothing to do with sending emails but with *recieving and storing* them.

It's true that *usually* there's a one to one mapping between mail accounts (auth) and mailboxes (mail address incoming storage) but there's nothing forcing that to be the case.

I for one own a single account on a server with about half a dozen mailboxes for different mail addresses within.

Re:Well this is some artificial bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37806758)

Even if it doesn't... As an office restriction it's pretty suboptimal...
My department ccs everything we do to everyone in the department, and the department we're talking to, systematically, it's policy.

So unless "it doesn't apply to unique recipients" means something different in the clouds too, it means that with a pair of departments of 15, we can send about 30 emails a day, tops... Anything above that, we're hitting the 500 non-unique recipients a day.

Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805882)

Wait a minute. I'm a manager, and I've been reading a lot of case studies and watching a lot of webcasts about The Cloud. Based on all of this glorious marketing literature, I, as a manager, have absolutely no reason to doubt the safety of any data put in The Cloud.

The case studies all use words like "secure", "MD5", "RSS feeds" and "encryption" to describe the security of The Cloud. I don't know about you, but that sounds damn secure to me! Some Clouds even use SSL and HTTP. That's rock solid in my book.

And don't forget that you have to use Web Services to access The Cloud. Nothing is more secure than SOA and Web Services, with the exception of perhaps SaaS. But I think that Cloud Services 2.0 will combine the tiers into an MVC-compliant stack that uses SaaS to increase the security and partitioning of the data.

My main concern isn't with the security of The Cloud, but rather with getting my Indian team to learn all about it so we can deploy some first-generation The Cloud applications and Web Services to provide the ultimate platform upon which we can layer our business intelligence and reporting, because there are still a few verticals that we need to leverage before we can move to The Cloud 2.0.

Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805932)

10/10 Would read again.

Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37806256)

10/10 Would read again.

The only problem is that it is a copy and paste that we have read many times before in any thread that has anything at all to do with clouds. (With the exception of those articles about cloud seeding in China for the Olympics).

Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. (1)

Slashdot Assistant (2336034) | about 2 years ago | (#37806268)

That's why I like it. I'm a manager, and I cannot see any reason to disagree with this manager. Thinking this way is why I decided to utilize Cloud in my upstream processes to allow myself more time for soliciting sex from hobos and the terminally ill.

Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. (1)

Surt (22457) | about 2 years ago | (#37806432)

Ewww gross, the terminally ill.

Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37806496)

You're grossed out by the terminally ill but you're okay with managers?

Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37806720)

Very nice +1 would enjoy being TLAd / buzzword bingod again.

Re:Well this is some artificial bullshit. (2)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about 2 years ago | (#37806186)

Actually I want to be able to set the limit lower. I don't send to more than 20 people on any given day. But a couple times my email accounts have been hijacked and used to send to 300+ people. If I could have set a limit to 20 that would have been great. Then had a secondary password for overriding the limit on any given day.

Essentially this policy should be translated as "We aren't a mailing list host. If you want to be a mailing list feel free to use Constant Contact."

Re:Well this is some artificial bullshit. (0, Flamebait)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#37806456)

Sure - although I have no doubts you would be happy if the limit was set at 20+1 emails per day, just so that it fucked everyone else up but not you, I say we lower it to about 10 emails a day. See? That's the problem with screaming for a law that affects everyone else except you.

Re:Well this is some artificial bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37806474)

Try keeping better control over your password.

Re:Well this is some artificial bullshit. (1)

SmurfButcher Bob (313810) | about 2 years ago | (#37806294)

It's a fantastic idea for non-mailbombers (and I don't mean that in a negative way). Consider...

If the O365 is a constant source of crapflood, some may blacklist it... or more likely, the headers will be scored highly in their bayes corpus. It's no different than the reputation problem that MessageLabs has - they are hostage to their worst behaving customer - but MS has hopefully realized that whitelisting is a horrible workaround, and is taking steps to avoid recipients needing to whitelist (which we will not do).

Remember, the typical O365 user is a retard who is quite happy to hit Ctrl-A, Send. This includes chain letters, TeaBag incitements, FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW from @aol.com, and (rarely) Today's Menu Specials@LocalDeli.com.

Re:Well this is some artificial bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37806790)

whitelisting is a horrible workaround, and is taking steps to avoid recipients needing to whitelist (which we will not do).

Until a "cloud" manager or a big customer forces you to. Email is fucking broken, face it. And white listing is a valid way to help ensure two partner companies can communicate reliably. If you were one of our suppliers, we fucking require that you white list us because we don't want to fuck with your stupid spam filters and whatever email server monkey bullshit you have going on that day. Technology is a tool for businesses to use to make money, not to be used for personal power trips.

If you were my employee and you told me "we don't do that," you wouldn't last long.

spam control (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805562)

m$ seem to have issues controlling their email infrastructure (hotmail) from sending spam.

when you have nothing else, a hard cap on number of mails is a way for m$ to control spamming.

this is good news for everybody on the internet.

alternatively, they could hire some competent people to re-architect m$ mail servers, or replace their m$ crap with stuff that works.

Re:spam control (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#37805724)

Given that they charge $6month/user, you'd think that that would chill spammers out of the service pretty quickly. If you are quasi-legit(yeah, yeah, you're an 'opt-in marketing professional', right...), MS has your payment details and can always nuke your account if you don't heed warnings.

If you are an outright scammer, a major American corporation with a history of litigation against people like you seems like a very odd place to try to pay for spam delivery with your skimmed CC accounts, surely there are better dodgy operators who will be cheaper and more cooperative...

Being free, hotmail anti-spam is much more of a technical problem, since they have to fight robo-signups and account cracking(these days, guessing some idiot's password is probably easier than reading most captchas...)

Re:spam control (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805912)

Mod down for using a $ in MS. It's not funny, it's not witty. It's immature.

Grow up.

Re:spam control (1, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#37806468)

Other people are free to reach their own conclusions, and decide for themselves what to think about a post with a "$" inserted in it. How about you grow up? No one elected you as a fucking censor.

email is nearly dead anyways (1, Flamebait)

Adult film producer (866485) | about 2 years ago | (#37805572)

who uses it anymore? anybody with a lick of sense twitters, facebooks and buzzes their status & important messages to friends.

Re:email is nearly dead anyways (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#37805602)

who uses it anymore? anybody with a lick of sense twitters, facebooks and buzzes their status & important messages to friends.

Sez 'AdultFilmProducer' who, I would imagine, stays a bit to the side of mainstream business workflows.

Re:email is nearly dead anyways (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805644)

Isn't Buzz officially dead? You're keeping up with things quite well...

Edit: Captcha was "obsolete". Appropriate.

Re:email is nearly dead anyways (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805694)

Buzz is a line of networked sex toys. Basically, think butt plug (or vibrator/egg thing) hooked up to your phone/email/twitter account. Instead of having your phone ring during an important meeting, your butt plug starts vibrating. Nobody get annoyed and you get a prostate massage.

But Google Buzz is dead.

Re:email is nearly dead anyways (1)

ani23 (899493) | about 2 years ago | (#37805660)

Not sure if serious

Re:email is nearly dead anyways (1)

LinuxIsGarbage (1658307) | about 2 years ago | (#37805696)

who uses it anymore? anybody with a lick of sense twitters, facebooks and buzzes their status & important messages to friends.

I prefer to twitter, facebook and buzz confidential business information to my co-workers, suppliers, and customers.

Re:email is nearly dead anyways (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 2 years ago | (#37805726)

What part of "businesses" did you not understand?
I don't think any business would be so stupid to put its communication on facebook or twitter.

Re:email is nearly dead anyways (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805918)

Point of fact: twitter, facebook, and google all use email.

Re:email is nearly dead anyways (2)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 2 years ago | (#37805742)

who uses it anymore? anybody with a lick of sense twitters, facebooks and buzzes their status & important messages to friends.

Are you still in Grade 11? Email is used extensively in the business world. I'm not going to 'twitter' a client or colleague asking them for an update on the latest price margin research.

Re:email is nearly dead anyways (2, Insightful)

gnapster (1401889) | about 2 years ago | (#37805936)

Are you still in Grade 5? The GP was obviously being facetious.

Re:email is nearly dead anyways (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 2 years ago | (#37806302)

Are you still in Grade 3? This is slashdot, where the lack of misinterpretations would cause more confusion than excess. :D

Re:email is nearly dead anyways (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 2 years ago | (#37806676)

I'm not so sure he was being facetious at all. After all, the GP was referring to "friends". He may have a point. But the parent also is also correct with regards to needing liabili...err...chain of communication in the corporate world.

Re:email is nearly dead anyways (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#37806546)

I'm not going to 'twitter' a client or colleague asking them for an update on the latest price margin research.

But if they call it "Office Communicator" people will...

500 emails are enough for everyone (1)

prefec2 (875483) | about 2 years ago | (#37805574)

I guess they want to limit it to avoid spammers to use their service. However, 500 outgoing mails can be limiting if you have more than 10 employees.

Re:500 emails are enough for everyone (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805634)

I don't see how you could fit many more than 500 emails in your 640k of ram anyway.

Re:500 emails are enough for everyone (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 years ago | (#37805706)

The solution is referential quoting. Instead of letting e-mails bulk up with huge morraines of backlogs, use reference numbers to refer to the message in the mailbox that this message most likely was a reply to. Then, trim out the extra data. Voila, now each e-mail is guaranteed to be an average of 50 bytes—guess your co-workers didn't have that much to say!

Quote and trim (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#37805910)

Instead of letting e-mails bulk up with huge morraines of backlogs, use reference numbers to refer to the message in the mailbox that this message most likely was a reply to.

You'd have to save byte ranges for each quoted section as well; otherwise, you break middle-posting [wikipedia.org] (point-by-point bottom posting), which appears to be the standard for quoting on Slashdot and on a lot of newsgroups that I used to be on. At that point, you might as well just compress the e-mails in one thread tree with some sort of LZ77-family text codec [pineight.com] so that later e-mails can consist largely of back-references to the history buffer.

Re:Quote and trim (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 years ago | (#37805938)

Sarcasm. Such e-mails are presumably not just 50 characters. I was making a joke about typical office e-mails, which are severely top-posting and content-free, like some kind of IM system gone wrong.

Re:500 emails are enough for everyone (2)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about 2 years ago | (#37805722)

Only the police and military should be allowed to send more than 500 emails.

Re:500 emails are enough for everyone (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#37806088)

It's not 500 e-mails. It's 500 recipients.
Say you send a morning update to four teams of 20 people, that's 80 right there. Then you send out an announcement to the building that there will be a fire alert test - easily 120 people. It's now 8:30 AM, and you've used up 200 of your 500. On two e-mails.

Re:500 emails are enough for everyone (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 2 years ago | (#37806322)

I think the 500 limit policy is stupid, but couldn't you save a whole lot of trouble by using mailing lists?

Re:500 emails are enough for everyone (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | about 2 years ago | (#37806564)

If it's 500 recipients total, wouldn't a mail list actually just sent to those 500 emails with one click?

Re:500 emails are enough for everyone (1)

turbidostato (878842) | about 2 years ago | (#37806638)

"If it's 500 recipients total, wouldn't a mail list actually just sent to those 500 emails with one click?"

Surely yes... only it wouldn't be 500 recipients (only one, the list server address).

Re:500 emails are enough for everyone (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | about 2 years ago | (#37806558)

Couldn't these be sent via an internal mail server? Would they go against the 500 mail limit?

Re:500 emails are enough for everyone (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 2 years ago | (#37806612)

There is no internal mail server. This replaces the internal mail server.

Re:500 emails are enough for everyone (1)

tftp (111690) | about 2 years ago | (#37806650)

There are much simpler scenarios. Sales & Marketing people like (and have to) stay in touch with the customers. Tech support people have to answer support emails. Buyers are required to email suppliers in search of parts. The CEO is sending updates about the company's finances to lawyers and accountants. This can easily reach 500 on any given day, unless your company is very small (or does nothing :-)

Time to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805578)

Time to reinstall your WordPerfect 1.0! Be Free!

But they are protecting the world from SPAM (0)

RichMan (8097) | about 2 years ago | (#37805596)

See this is Microsofts way of protecting the world from SPAM.

---
And just wow, enterprises, limited to 1500 emails a day. I say Microsoft should try that for a couple of years before imposing that on everyone else.

Say you are an enterprise with 16,000 employees, less than 10% of those will be able to send a single email each nay.

Re:But they are protecting the world from SPAM (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 2 years ago | (#37805646)

Say you are an enterprise with 16,000 employees, less than 10% of those will be able to send a single email each nay.

That may be a good thing. We really don't need an entire email trail about Stephanie's promotion party at Olive Garden, or Jim's fundraiser.

Maybe 10% of my daily emails have to do with actual work.

Re:But they are protecting the world from SPAM (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805756)

RTFA. It says the limit is per mailbox, not per company. Still annoying sure, but the specific problem example you gave is not correct. Each of those 16,000 employees will have their own recipient limit *of 1,500 recipients since I assume 16,000 employess is not a small business anymore).

Re:But they are protecting the world from SPAM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805698)

That was exactly my thought: they're a huge enterprise themselves, they could dictate that plenty of different divisions beta this kind of thing, it would take no time at all to realize what a bad idea it is.

Re:But they are protecting the world from SPAM (2)

VertigoAce (257771) | about 2 years ago | (#37805762)

The limit is per mailbox. So every employee can send mail to 1500 recipients per day.

Google's SMTP relay has similar limits (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805600)

I wanted to send email from a PHP app in a quick-and-easy way. GMail allows anyone with a GMail account to use them as an SMTP relay (which is awesome), but has a similar limit - I think it's 500 emails, and no more than 2,000 recipients or somesuch.

Not even for small businesses (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#37805620)

One of our clients has about 60 employees and averages over a thousand emails a day outside of the company

Re:Not even for small businesses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805738)

This is why Google Apps is winning the groupware battle.

Google Apps has similar limits (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805636)

Google Apps has similar limits: 500 external recipients per day for free users. 3000 external recipients if you have a biz or edu account.

Sending limits: http://www.google.com/support/a/bin/answer.py?answer=166852

Re:Google Apps has similar limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805846)

500 per user, not per domain.

640K (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805652)

is enough for anyone.

- Bill Gates

Re:640K (1)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | about 2 years ago | (#37805814)

Ironically that can become true in the far future.

Welcome to cloud computing... (5, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | about 2 years ago | (#37805680)

...where the customer is the commodity.

You really think outsourcing something as basic as being able to compose an email or a word processing document or spreadsheet is a good idea? The stupidity boggles the mind. Yeah, let's increase the number of ways you're always at the mercy of your service providers and see what that does for your "core business".

Lesson is don't be lazy. Unless it's a specialised service that requires something special or you really can live with outages, host it your damn self.

Re:Welcome to cloud computing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805740)

...where the customer is the commodity.

We like to use this description about services we don't like, but exactly the same is true of Slashdot - we are the commodity of Slashdot, we are the product -- or any Google service.

Re:Welcome to cloud computing... (2)

syousef (465911) | about 2 years ago | (#37806282)

...where the customer is the commodity.

We like to use this description about services we don't like, but exactly the same is true of Slashdot - we are the commodity of Slashdot, we are the product -- or any Google service.

Difference is I don't lose millions of dollars if Slashdot goes down, or I can't do a Google search for a couple of days.

One long rambling post (3, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | about 2 years ago | (#37806300)

Didn't the old services like AOL used to restrict the number of messages you could send? I don't remember for sure, but I seem to recall people complaining about something like that.

The first release of any service has to start with some sort of limitation on what users can do in order to throttle the service volume while they work out what users actual needs are and what it's really costing to serve those needs. But you have to start somewhere to get out the door.

I remember the same arguments being raised 20 years ago when people were shifting workloads from mainframes and VAXes to the new-fangled early Unix systems and PCs. Who in their right mind would risk losing it all to a disk crash? Unix systems are unreliable!

I don't agree with putting everything on the cloud myself, and I hate it's very name (it's nothing more than a geographically distributed server cluster -- nothing new to the international businesses I've programmed for over the years.) But I digress...

You can buy a software package, install it locally, do your own backups, and comfort yourself that you're in total control. Or you can choose to outsource your services and storage, sign up for a service level agreement, and let someone else take care of it. Either approach has risks, and it's up to the user or business to decide which are more important risks to cover.

Most businesses don't want a local tech support team -- it's not what their core business is. Sorry, but the glory days of hiding out in the office of a mom & pop business hacking away at the systems and software are coming to an end. Those jobs are being outsourced and serviced. Did you think programmers were immune to change?

I don't like it any more than anyone else. I enjoyed writing batch processing and other striaght forward C code, but the 4GLs and reporting tools hit the market and those jobs went away. So started working with Oracle and embedded SQL, eventually branching out into Oracle DBA work and performance tuning. Then the East Indian contractors moved in to the Florida market and cut the rates too low for survival, so I had to change "careers" again. I did Neuron Data GUI development until the technology died, and I had to change again. You can check my resume data at Masterbranch if you're really curious where it went from there.

Life is change. You don't get a choice about whether you adapt -- the world will change with or without your approval.

Re:Welcome to cloud computing... (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | about 2 years ago | (#37806422)

That's fine for larger organizations, but for medium/small organizations that's hardly a fair argument. I happen to live in an area where there are maybe 5 people that could competently run a mail server of any size, 2 of which I trust and one of them is me. There just isn't enough talent out here for everyone to host their own email. So either they go with out email, or they externally host.

Re:Welcome to cloud computing... (0)

syousef (465911) | about 2 years ago | (#37806616)

That's fine for larger organizations, but for medium/small organizations that's hardly a fair argument. I happen to live in an area where there are maybe 5 people that could competently run a mail server of any size, 2 of which I trust and one of them is me. There just isn't enough talent out here for everyone to host their own email. So either they go with out email, or they externally host.

Gimme a break. It's not rocket science and it could be taught to an intelligent high school student. Clearly what you need is education in your local area, instead businesses entrusting themselves to the whims of a large corporation who's trying to offer the lowest cost service it can..

Re:Welcome to cloud computing... (1)

turbidostato (878842) | about 2 years ago | (#37806648)

" I happen to live in an area where there are maybe 5 people that could competently run a mail server of any size"

As if there were the slightest need for your mail service administrator to live anywhere near a 2000 miles radius from your place.

Crippleware is Apple's profit point. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805684)

If you would like to unlock the software from these limitations, please Upgrade your COPY of this software
to the full version.

This shit was only cool when Apogee did that, because it was already fully functional and awesome until we wanted to go more places with what we already had, but when Apple and others do that it's just a big turn-off because it's not fully functional and there are no timers in place to scale the rate at which the software executes or even spawn parallel threads. F-U Apple.

Oh this is Microsoft? Nevermind, that's their feature. Yay Microsoft, protecting us from spammers that might think of using their software's Send but probably get-around this limitation by a B/CC me knowing how Microsoft implements their restrictions at the UI rather than a ruleset.

The article has been updated (5, Informative)

Meshach (578918) | about 2 years ago | (#37805686)

The actual limit is 500 emails per day per recipient [1] [zdnet.com] . Still not optimal but much harder to run into for smaller businesses.

Re:The article has been updated (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805824)

Also worth noting, the basic Google Business plan has the limit set at 500 too..

Re:The article has been updated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805972)

As stated by another user, that's "Google Apps has similar limits: 500 external recipients per day for free users. 3000 external recipients if you have a biz or edu account." since google has both a free and paid account for Google apps that businesses can use.

Even at 500 emails a day per user account (not domain), it won't effect the majority of users (even less at 3000) unless they are sending bulk mail which is probably not desirable for Google or MS since that goes into the area of spam and/or mailing lists.

Re:The article has been updated (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | about 2 years ago | (#37806080)

Just to add to that:

500 email per day is pretty close to one email per minute in a working day. Not your average officeworker...

"recipients" vs "external recipients" (1)

mbkennel (97636) | about 2 years ago | (#37806220)

Like the difference between a republic and a people's republic.

500 recipients per mailbox (1)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | about 2 years ago | (#37805720)

The limit is 500 recipients per mailbox, so with 20 mailboxes you can potentially communicate with 10 000 people per 24 hours.

Cost/Benefit (1)

farnsworth (558449) | about 2 years ago | (#37805822)

Office 365 costs $0.20 per day ($6/month). If sending an email is worth more to you than $0.0004, maybe you should be looking at other providers who offer similar services.

Re:Cost/Benefit (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#37805926)

Libreoffice with Samba and OfficeSIP would seem to be a viable alternative to me, am I wrong?

Re:Cost/Benefit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37806016)

Dead wrong. They're viable if you like dogshit.

Re:Cost/Benefit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37806470)

Those all work in theory, but Libre office doesn't integrate with Sharepoint, Samba still only does file sharing and NT4 style domains, and OfficeSIP doesn't have the AD/Sharepoint/Exchange and Presence that Linc has.

Those all might work for little peoples, but big places are sold on the integrations to everything Microsoft sells, hat's their value. You're running Windows OS, with Office, Exchange, Linc, Sharepoint, Managed with Active Directory and System Center backed up with DPM, all the server running windows server.

Nickel and diming, the essence of cloud computing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805850)

Now that we're in the era of everything-as-a-service, people are going to be nickel and dimed to death on computing services, just as the cellular providers do, and Ma Bell before them.

By packaging things as a service which non-technical people do not understand it is easy for the provider to lay traps through nonsense such as artificial usage tiers and add-on plans to extract maximum coin from the subscribed sheep.

With the underlying technology being so cheap, such goofy pricing allows for plenty of wasteful overhead to pay paper pushers and advertising campaigns, costs passed along to the end user.

If the goal is to prevent abuse, set the limit far above what any human can legitimately use, like Gmail did with storage space.

500 attachment-laden emails which must be transferred, stored, and scanned for malware consume substantially more resources than a broad CC of a one-liner to a working group. Clearly, message count doesn't correlate well to resource usage. Where have we seen that before? Oh right, the larcenous racket known as mobile text messaging.

And if there wasn't a limit... (1)

Michael_gr (1066324) | about 2 years ago | (#37805934)

...I'm sure you'd be publishing an alarmist article about how Office365 could easily be used for spam. 500 distinct recipients per day sound pretty decent to me, and far above anything a normal human being would need. If you need more you are either: 1. sending to a mailing list, in which case, boo-hoo, just use another product 2. a spammer.

Re:And if there wasn't a limit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37806172)

With so many other ways to spam, why would anyone pay for something (leaving a paper trail) to facilitate spam? Eliminating spam is actually something that would be very easy to do, if only we were willing to do it.

Your solution to spam has failed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37805984)

Your solution to spam has failed [slashdot.org]

It is per user, not per company (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37806076)

This is pretty much a non-story. First, you are only paying them $6 a month. Second, it is a 500 limit per mailbox per day. If someone is really sending more than 500 emails a day, then they are almost certainly doing some kind of email marketing. If that is the case, either split up your lists into groups of 500 and setup mailboxes for each list, or use something like constant contact.

WTF? Why the funk... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37806106)

Why would anyone choose a product that you have to pay for (Misro$oft ANYTHING) when it imposes limitations like this, and there is an alternative (LibreOff.) that is first, FREE, second, NOT restrictive like this, and third, did I mention it's FREE?!?

That's like there's two cars at a dealership. One's free, gets 38mpg, and you can drive it is much as you want, and even modify it and give it to someone else as long as you don't insist they can't have the same privileges you got... and next to it is the M$ car, it costs $400/mo to lease it, you can't lend it to anyone, you can't resell it to anyone (legally) without going through M$, and it gets 12 mpg, can't carry any more than the LibreOff. car, isn't any more comfortable, nor any faster, (in fact less of all of these) doesn't look cooler, and... AND... you can't drive it more than 100 miles per day.

Why the funk would ANYONE in his/her right mind buy the M$ car? Are they funking retreaded?

Re:WTF? Why the funk... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37806336)

Uh, 'cus LibreOff does not include an MTA, nor the fucking rocket scientist to admin it?

Dipshit.

Exchange is still well named (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 years ago | (#37806196)

Swap it for something else that works.
In this case that also includes other versions of MS Exchange.

Fanboys that will tell me how wonderful it is should talk to somebody that has had to take care of the thing for a long period of time of read some FAQs on what to do when the thing fails. The stuff was beta for years - for about the first half dozen versions you couldn't even get a full backup suitable for bare metal restore without stopping everything and the only reason you can now is because another bit of MS introduced shadow copy. Look at archives of tech mailing lists online and you'll see the thing still loses emails at times which is pretty unacceptable for a production MTA.

FUD (3, Informative)

localtoast (611553) | about 2 years ago | (#37806230)

This is to prevent spammers from being able to send mail from *.onmicrosoft.com. This is the online service, not to be confused with Office, the desktop app.

The whiner is a spammer (2)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#37806248)

From the article: "In this case, the new CEO had sent a getting-acquainted message to 400 of the company's customers and prospects."

"And prospects"? That's "unsolicited commercial e-mail". No opt-in. No previous commercial relationship. Just because you're a CEO doesn't mean you can spam.

Microsoft is trying to keep their Office 360 product from becoming a spam engine, like Hotmail.

Re:The whiner is a spammer (1)

cbeaudry (706335) | about 2 years ago | (#37806400)

Though i understand your point, prospects means people or companies you arent doing business with yet.

However it doesnt necessarily mean you dont have a relationship established with your prospects.

Re:The whiner is a spammer (1)

tftp (111690) | about 2 years ago | (#37806690)

I'm currently working at a business where it can easily take half a year between the first contact and the purchase order. The customer is not unhappy to talk to us - he has a real need and we make a product that fits the bill. It simply takes time to get funding on his end, and we also may need to make a few changes here and there to meet his specific requirements. Sometimes we even design a new product for the customer if it makes sense.

spam made more difficult (1)

noshellswill (598066) | about 2 years ago | (#37806508)

**Any** method that reduces excessive emailing (spam) is a good method. Good work M$lime putting the smakkdown on byteboy mailers! . Really screws the "strivers". If your (small) business // rodent, viper and pest INC// is used to spewing out 5000 emails/day you just bit the bigone. **ANY** deterrent helps. M$ deterrent helps any!

Solution: gmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#37806526)

Just use gmail. Office Small Business doesn't sound like even a usable product to me.

Leave it to microsoft ... (0)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#37806784)

... to actually find a less effective long-term response to spam than filtering.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>