cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
duncan10
Expert
2,379 Views
Message 11 of 27

Re: Email - too many recipients

Allan- I agree BT could be a bit more forthcoming but they were always like this so much information to the public and no more . Its a policy that hasnt changed over the decades. But  I dont think BT will be putting all technical fault information "up front" as that is for advertising services provided by BT . In that respect they are the same as other large companies.

0 Ratings
gatehill
Contributor
2,351 Views
Message 12 of 27

Re: Email - too many recipients

I sent BT a message via the technical team and received a response along the lines of they would like to phone me and have an interactive session. I replied saying that I did not believe it was a technical problem but, rather, a policy one. I asked them to forward my message to the relevant department.

 

Here is their response:

 

"I understand from you email that you wish to send more than 50 emails from your
email account. As informed by one of my colleagues in the technical department,
due to the new BTsecurity policy we have reduced the number of recipients while
sending emails.

I am afraid to say that we wouldn't be able to make any
changes on the policy as it has been done for security purpose. I apologies for
the inconvenience caused. Please write back to us for further queries."

 

I will be asking them why this has not been communicated to customers as it would appear to affect many people.

0 Ratings
duncan10
Expert
2,341 Views
Message 13 of 27

Re: Email - too many recipients

Gatehill the answer you received looks a bit ambiguous .  Do they mean a limit of 50/??? Or less than 50/??? There were stories of 25 being the limit.

0 Ratings
Oliver341
Expert
2,327 Views
Message 14 of 27

Re: Email - too many recipients


@duncan10 wrote:

Gatehill the answer you received looks a bit ambiguous .  Do they mean a limit of 50/??? Or less than 50/??? There were stories of 25 being the limit.


 

It's 50 (inclusive), I tested it.

Oliver.
0 Ratings
gatehill
Contributor
2,222 Views
Message 15 of 27

Re: Email - too many recipients

I have now followed this up a little further. Three weeks ago after I asked for my comments to BT to be logged as a complaint I did get a sympathetic lady telephone me the following day telling me how to complain.

 

I got round to doing this at the end of last week. I spoke to a "level 2" pesron at BT and they said the limit was 20; however, I have been sending to 45 recently, seemingly without a problem. This peson took my point that this change had not been communicated and would escalate it to "level 3".

 

I await a response.

0 Ratings
duncan10
Expert
2,216 Views
Message 16 of 27

Re: Email - too many recipients

I will be interested to see if its= 50-45- or 20. I await with bated breath.

0 Ratings
Thersites
Newbie
2,102 Views
Message 17 of 27

Re: Email - too many recipients

I'm a phlegmatic sort, but I don't think I have ever been as mad at a supplier/service provider before. 20+20+80 minutes on phone to support for the achievement of learning that the current max no of recipients is 20. The irony is that along the way I encountered two invitations to give feedback, both of which were so narrowly scoped as to exclude the possibility of BT hearing of the systems problem that underlies this. La La La...not listening! is the message I received, loud & clear from BT today.

 

I have looked up & down this thread (discovered during the 80 min call while 2nd level support sought advice from a higher authority) - thanks to everybody who has troubled to write. But I marvel at our passivity and ready acceptance of the discgraceful behaviour of BT. This is (or should be) a contractual issue - cutting the number of recipients we can address messages to is a withdrawal of service, which has been made unilaterally, without consultation or notification, and in a concealed fashion. Even 2nd level technical support are unaware or have been trained to deny knowledge of this.

 

I've had my btinternet account for over 20yr now, and been using distribution lists for 15 of those. Technical support (who were Scottish - and technically knowledgeable - in those days) told me instantly I rang that 99 total recipients was the maximum. So the Allotment waiting list I manage was broken into three. But to now make these three into twenty-three lists is unthinkable - and entirely unreasonable. For BT to conceal the fact of this significant change from its FAQ lists, from its help info and from even its technical support staff....is unconscionable.

 

I have started a complaint process and anticipate that in the first round, it will be airily dismissed with a 'necessary measure to counter spam' or similar paraphrase. But this is not truthful. The same person who told me that I could send only to 20 recipients with a Residential account helpfully informed me that, were I only to upgrade to a Business account, I could send to 500 at a time. It is this last bit which has set the pulse in my forehead going, and I'm damned if I'm taking this lying down. Schumacher was right to say 'Small is beautiful' - we create monsters when we, for the convenience of marginally lower costs, allow organisations to grow too large.

0 Ratings
Oliver341
Expert
2,094 Views
Message 18 of 27

Re: Email - too many recipients


@Thersites wrote:

I'm a phlegmatic sort, but I don't think I have ever been as mad at a supplier/service provider before. 20+20+80 minutes on phone to support for the achievement of learning that the current max no of recipients is 20. 


 

Despite what they say, the SMTP recipient limit is in fact 50:

 

<< 250 MAIL FROM:<[removed]@btinternet.com> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-1@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-2@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-3@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-4@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-5@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-6@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-7@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-8@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-9@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-10@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-11@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-12@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-13@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-14@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-15@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-16@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-17@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-18@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-19@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-20@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-21@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-22@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-23@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-24@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-25@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-26@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-27@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-28@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-29@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-30@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-31@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-32@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-33@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-34@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-35@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-36@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-37@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-38@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-39@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-40@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-41@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-42@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-43@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-44@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-45@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-46@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-47@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-48@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-49@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 250 RCPT TO:<[removed]-50@yahoo.co.uk> OK
<< 354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>
<< 250 <52CA85B7000888A5> Mail accepted

 

Oliver.
0 Ratings
Distinguished Guru
Distinguished Guru
2,079 Views
Message 19 of 27

Re: Email - too many recipients


Thersites wrote:

I marvel at our passivity and ready acceptance of the discgraceful behaviour of BT. This is (or should be) a contractual issue - cutting the number of recipients we can address messages to is a withdrawal of service, which has been made unilaterally, without consultation or notification, and in a concealed fashion.


BT's recent record on management of change and communication with customers is poor but it's only a contractual issue if they breach the Terms and Conditions, which can be a matter of conjecture. The T&C for the email service specify little service detail; that, together with the paragraph below (despite the highly subjective use of the word "minor"), alas gives them carte blanche to do and change pretty much anything. (It actually relates to BT Yahoo! Mail; I suspect the new BT Mail will be similar but they don't seem to have updated it yet.Smiley Frustrated)

 

Capture.PNG

 

We accept the T&C when we take the service; at the risk of seeming marvellously passive there is a choice, though when you look elsewhere it's very much Hobson's.

--
You can click the thumbs up icon below this message if you think it was helpful.
0 Ratings
Thersites
Newbie
2,044 Views
Message 20 of 27

Re: Email - too many recipients

Thanks Potty, for investigating the wording of the T&C on my behalf - I am grateful.  I stand by my assertion that the recent change we are discussing should be a contractual matter because it represents a unilateral alteration of the service provided under that contract.  And the wording you quote confirms this, even if in regrettably vague language.  Whether the reduction is from 100 to 20 as I was told, or 100 to 50 as Oliver reports, it will be a hard job convincing the man on the Clapham omnibus (who represents the test of reasonableness) that this is a minor change.

 

Some other 50% reductions that would be hard to classify as minor - a 50% reduction in: body mass; in take home pay; in fatalities from cycling accidents; in satisfaction of BT customers.

 

And the justification (my final para)?  There can be none other than commercial venality if this reduction has been applied to residential accounts while 500 addressees remain available from a business account...are we to believe that business accounts can send no spam?  And from an orthogonal perspective, how effective is the measure anyway, given that most of the spam I receive is broken by bulk mailers into groups of 10 addressees?

 

So peel back the flummery and what is left?  A breach of the T&C, done on the quiet, with a spurious motive proffered only under duress, and (with the alternative candidates dismissed) the real motive remains as the making less attractive of the cheaper of two services in pursuit of increased profit.  This behaviour is no more honourable than that of the rail companies who, prevented from raising prices as they would wish, obtain the same result by changing the definition of off-peak hours to reduce their number in a day.  We shareholders should oblige the board of BT to stand up & recite Claudius' soliloquy from Hamlet - "O my offence is rank, it stinketh to high heaven".  Meantime, I'm getting out of this frying pan and finding another ISP.

0 Ratings