Unfortunately, Practical365.com cannot create a solution out of thin air. We also cannot report information that Microsoft has shared with our authors under NDA. I think it is fair to say that all of the folks here who work with Exchange Server and Exchange Online are intensely aware of the issue around SMTP relay. Microsoft is as well, but again, we cannot report what doesn’t exist today and what might not exist if development plans fail. If you want to read about aspirational delivery of software, read Microsoft’s blogs where they can describe future plans and dates. If you want to read what’s available and can be implemented today, read our articles.

I posted my comments to warn some community members, that would chose a path, maybe consume time to make a long-term configuration, with some options that will sadly be deprecated. Unless they are, they can be used obviously, but don’t spend to much time configuring a state-of-the-art relay system that won’t work in a few months.
The problem here is, many messaging admins are missing solutions from Microsoft. Microsoft deprecating old products or auth protocols is indeed a good news, but we need alternatives. Especially as some companies already got rid of their Exchange Servers. With Microsoft deprecating SMTP AUTH online, we still need to relay emails from old appliances, we need a non-Exchange Server working and above all supported SMTP relay solution, that’s the situation in the current world, whether Microsoft likes it or not. I think it’s therefore a sensitive subject for Messaging admins at this time, and when we see this kind of title in an article, we all hope to see the miraculous announcement or solution we are all waiting for, therefore creating some disappointment. But this situation is Microsoft’s fault, not yours, thanks for sharing your knowledge and solutions to the community, it’s as precious as the time you’re saving us with clear explanations.

By the way, it’s always easy to criticize writers. If you’re up to the challenge, try writing for Practical 365 and see how it goes…

AFAIK, Exchange Server 2019 is the current version and will not be replaced untl Exchange Server Subscription arrives Edition arrives in Summer 2025. I think it is perfectly acceptable to discuss Exchange 2019 at this point.

SMTP AUTH and Basic AUTH are still available in Exchange Server. SMTP AUTH will be removed from Exchange Online, but it’s still there.

ERR won’t be in Exchange Online until 2025. HVE is still in preview and it and ACS will incur additional cost. I would like to write about HVE but I cannot because Microsoft cannot resolve a problem in my tenant (expected in previews). I don’t write about stuff until I have tested it thoroughly and I suspect that’s the same for Jaap.

The audience for Practical 365 is formed largely of people who need practical, hands-on advice for running online or on-premises environments. As it happens, the author of this piece is a highly experienced Exchange MVP who has huge knowledge of solving customer problems. Whether or not he didn’t care to spend time figuring out why an MMC snap-in failed is immaterial if his advice is sound and accurate.

If you care to read the articles on this site, I think you’ll find that they cover real-life topics with a very practical perspective. I think we’re well ahead of any other site writing about Microsoft 365 and Exchange Server today. If you can point to other sites that have published hundreds of articles about different topics in these areas that does better, I am all ears because I have not found one. There are always one-off articles that document invaluable nuggets of information that cannot be found elsewhere, but the value of a site is measured over time and not by individual articles.

Is the audience of this article subject matter experts that can read between the lines and already know what works and what doesn’t or is the audience less-experienced admins trying to learn about technologies to use in their environments? I would have thought the latter and for those, this article is misleading.

And what is it with “I was not able to get the MMC snap-in working and I didn’t have enough time to figure out what was wrong there.” If someone doesn’t have enough time to figure out a problem, should they just omit details from their post or should they spend the time figuring it out before they post? I think that’s a no brainer.

Lastly, why not mention HVE or Azure Communication Services in an article about Exchange Online and SMTP relay?

Is the quality of this post representative of other articles on this site?