Email Error .. my ip public blocked
-
noted .. will bring this up to next meeting
-
Just for some reference...
Generally having a service like MXLogic, Postini, AppRiver or similar is going to be about $2/user/month.
Having Office 365 which gives you all of that plus your entire Exchange server, storage, backup and support is just $4/user/month.
So typically you will find that having the first service doesn't make sense as much as having Office 365, Google Apps or Rackspace Email because they are just so cost effective.
Prices are in USD. You'll need to check the cost in your local currency.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Yes I send direct from my own machine and No I don't have a front end like Postini. But I do use AppRiver to receive all of my email to filter out spam and virus...
Your SMTP doesn't connect to AppRiver? Isn't that included in the service?
No it's not included - that's an additional fee - or at least it was 10 years ago when we signed up. At this time I'm not sure what it would gain us by sending email out though them? again we've only been on a blacklist once in since 2001.
-
@Dashrender said:
No it's not included - that's an additional fee - or at least it was 10 years ago when we signed up. At this time I'm not sure what it would gain us by sending email out though them? again we've only been on a blacklist once in since 2001.
That's just crazy. I can't believe you've never faced blacklisting. It used to happen so capriciously.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Just for some reference...
Generally having a service like MXLogic, Postini, AppRiver or similar is going to be about $2/user/month.
Having Office 365 which gives you all of that plus your entire Exchange server, storage, backup and support is just $4/user/month.
So typically you will find that having the first service doesn't make sense as much as having Office 365, Google Apps or Rackspace Email because they are just so cost effective.
Prices are in USD. You'll need to check the cost in your local currency.
And while my cost per user is closer to $1/user ( I think I'm paying $1.10/user), assuming I can solve the two issues listed in my other thread will push me to O365 when my current Open License SA expires.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Last that I knew, AppRiver was per user. I have not used one of these services in a while because we use Office 365 here which includes that type of service automatically.
so if it is the case i don't see it benefit, if you will pay per user it is better to host the whole mail service and get rid of the headache caused by emails, i know that the price per user in AppRiver will be less than hosting but ii think the difference would be little
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Last that I knew, AppRiver was per user. I have not used one of these services in a while because we use Office 365 here which includes that type of service automatically.
so if it is the case i don't see it benefit, if you will pay per user it is better to host the whole mail service and get rid of the headache caused by emails, i know that the price per user in AppRiver will be less than hosting but ii think the difference would be little
That's been my logic for a while. There are exceptions to this, but in general. Once you take into account all of the costs with these kinds of services it makes fully hosted that much easier to swallow.
Especially when fully hosted options from enterprise players start as low as $1/user/month flat!
-
@Dashrender said:
And while my cost per user is closer to $1/user ( I think I'm paying $1.10/user), assuming I can solve the two issues listed in my other thread will push me to O365 when my current Open License SA expires.
It's amazing what already paying over 25% of the cost does to offset the equation!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
No it's not included - that's an additional fee - or at least it was 10 years ago when we signed up. At this time I'm not sure what it would gain us by sending email out though them? again we've only been on a blacklist once in since 2001.
That's just crazy. I can't believe you've never faced blacklisting. It used to happen so capriciously.
I hear stories about this all the time. But I've not found it to be true. When I was a consultant supporting about 15 local companies, all of which hosted locally, blacklisting happened about once a year over all the clients.
I have my company and other other that I still support (that moved to RS 2 years ago) that until that point only one BL between them in 10+ years.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
And while my cost per user is closer to $1/user ( I think I'm paying $1.10/user), assuming I can solve the two issues listed in my other thread will push me to O365 when my current Open License SA expires.
It's amazing what already paying over 25% of the cost does to offset the equation!
Sure, but my two issues are pretty large show stoppers for our business...
-
As almost all of our clients used to run SBS, all email was locally hosted. and 2 still are (one on SBS 2008, the other on Exchange 2010).
They have never been blacklisted because I have always blocked outbound port 25 on my networks for all devices except the email server itself.
Getting blacklisted requires allowing something to happen. It does not just capriciously happen.
-
@JaredBusch said:
As almost all of our clients used to run SBS, all email was locally hosted. and 2 still are (one on SBS 2008, the other on Exchange 2010).
They have never been blacklisted because I have always blocked outbound port 25 on my networks for all devices except the email server itself.
Getting blacklisted requires allowing something to happen. It does not just capriciously happen.
Exactly - that is why I mentioned using a dedicated IP that the firewall only allows traffic from the mail server itself to use, then you don't have to worry about blacklisting... but Jared's method is equally as good too.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Getting blacklisted requires allowing something to happen. It does not just capriciously happen.
I've had customers long ago get blocked for being on a bad block, even though their address was not in question.
Blocking can be done by reporting, so competitors can get you blocked, or used to be able to.
-
Thanks any answers and explanation ... problem solved, after requesting to microsoft and re setting my send connector issue ..
1000 thumbs for this forum -
So glad that we were able to help and very glad to have you here!
-
how to mark this post to [solved] ..
-
That's not a functionality that we have here yet. But we might have it soon. It is being tested on some of the other forums.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
- Lack of knowledge of email systems (or else they would be hosted) leading to more issues below
Wait, are you saying that anyone who runs on-premise e-mail is an idiot?
I have been blacklisted in the past, when I was younger and naive, but I reckon configuring the firewall to only allow the mail server to use port 25 solves 99% of problems. If people you know are constantly getting blacklisted than I suggest they've got much bigger problems than simply using on-premise e-mail. It's like saying "my house keeps burning down so I've decided to move to a fire-proof house".
I've never heard of competitors being able to block your IP address by simply reporting it. That sounds a bit dodgy.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I've never heard of competitors being able to block your IP address by simply reporting it. That sounds a bit dodgy.
Blacklists are not big companies, are all individual and can do whatever they want. Some of them accept reports, or used to, as to spam. If you think about it, how does anyone determine that something is a spam relay? The blacklists have to get that information from somewhere.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
- Lack of knowledge of email systems (or else they would be hosted) leading to more issues below
Wait, are you saying that anyone who runs on-premise e-mail is an idiot?
That's not what I said. If you read the lead in to the list, I pointed out that these things were things that typically or generally happened with on premises systems. So "anyone" doesn't apply here. And not being an email specialist is in no way the same thing as an idiot, so the idiot bit does not apply.
What I was pointing out is that because by and large the vast majority of email systems should be hosted but many are not there is a very high incidence of people lacking deep email experience that, partially due to that very lack of knowledge and experience, decide to run email in house and/or lack the wherewithal to convince the powers that be that hosted email is needed. This creates a situation where there is a higher chance that on premises email systems are being run by people who don't have a lot of email experience or knowledge - it's self fulfilling in that way. People with the most email experience and knowledge are the most likely to be pushing for email to be hosted (talking averages here, not specific cases) and will also have the most clout to convince management to do so.
