On Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 2:33:53 AM, Peter Nitschke wrote: > On 11/11/2008 at 7:58 PM Dave Koontz wrote:
>>There are many non-profits out there that will hit your limits... I >>don't think anyone knows how many there are. 1,000 users is fairly >>trivial, and most non profits won't even be able to fill in your forms >>second "required" field of how many messages on "Average" they send a day. >> >>I can tell you that most all small 'private' not for profit schools and >>colleges will get hit hard by your new fees. In fact, your new fees are >>more than we spend on our email server per year, and as a result will >>never happen. >> >>Given this change in SURBL in policy and pricing, I would strongly >>suggest removing their rules from the SA rule base. Otherwise, you will >>likely get lots of complaints from users of systems that have embedded >>SA installs, or others who do not monitor this list. I can see many >>Barracuda users not having a clue why they are now being blocked and >>their systems are processing messages slower as a result. >> >>Sorry Jeff, but this is much too expensive for us and many others I >>suspect. > "or processing fewer than 250,000 messages per day" > Wouldn't that cover most not for profit organisations? > Peter We deliberately chose 1,000 users and 250,000 messages to be high limits. Most small to medium sized organizations would not hit them and could therefore keep using the free DNS queries. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
