Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft's Office365 Limits Emails To 500 Recipients

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."

6 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Google Apps has similar limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  2. Welcome to cloud computing... by syousef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  3. The article has been updated by Meshach · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --
    "Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
    Aldous Huxley
  4. Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  5. Re:Well this is some artificial bullshit. by interval1066 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  6. Re:Well this is some artificial bullshit. by canajin56 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI