[gmx-users] verified address blues

[Kabir Roy Chowdhury]

Dear gmx-mail experts, Happy 2013!

I have been struggling to send New-Year greetings using a Thunderbird 
list with 50+ addresses, and sought help from GMX support. Below is a 
nutshell of the exchanges:
===
*Jan 02*: I get the error message 5.5.3. (more than 26 addresses) while 
trying to send New Year Greetings to about 50 people. Unfortunately, I 
could not not find an explanantion OR what to do about it.
---
*Jan 03: *Are you usine the webmailer or POP3/IMAP?
===
*Jan 03:* Well, I am using IMAP to read/send messages from my Linux-PC 
using Thunderbird 17.0.
---
*Jan 04:***Sounds like a temporary sending issue for sending too many 
messages.
===
*Jan 04:***Danke für Ihre Antwort, die leider wieder sehr kryptisch ist. 
Vielleicht haben Sie meine Frage auf *Englisch nicht richtig 
verstanden*. Daher nun auf Deutsch: Kürzlich probierte ich *einen 
Bericht* in der bcc-Mode an eine Liste mit *52 Adressen *zu schicken, 
und bekam die Fehler-Meldung, daß mehr als *26 Adressen für nicht 
verifizierte Benutzer *nicht erlaubt sind. Die ganze Meldung lautete:
=================================
An error occurred while sending mail. The mail server responded: 5.5.3 
{mp-eu013} No more than 26 recipients allowed for unverified users 5.5.3 
( http://portal.gmx.net/serverrules ). Please check the message 
recipient chandrobindu at rediffmail.com 
<mailto:chandrobindu at rediffmail.com> and try again.
=================================
Leider ist auf Ihrem Site Nichts zu finden, wie man einen *User 
verifiziert haben kan* :-( Vielleicht können Sie hierzu etwas unter FAQ 
anbringen.

Was mich betreft, ich gebe auf, werde meine Liste zerteilen, und 
weitermachen.
---
*Jan 04:***Splitting up the messages would indeed be the best possible 
option. Verified addresses can only be verified when you register as a 
trusted sender with us.
===

Well, this morning I have spent considerable time trying to find out how 
to become a *trusted sender* - without success, and hence became member 
of the user-group. Could someone please enlighten me?

And by the way, would it not be more efficient for everyone, if the 
responses from the support group was a bit *more pro-active, instead of 
**cryptic one-liners*?

Hoping not to have offended anyone, and expecting to soon learn about my 
ignorance of the mail set-up.

Regards, Kabir.RC at gmx.com