Update on Plusnet email migration to Greenby

[#1]

@pvmb  An interesting descriptive post, but of absolutely no help to Plusnet customers trying to make sense of the long drawn out migration of the email platform.

[#2]

@RealAleMadrid 

" no help to Plusnet customers trying to make sense of the long drawn out migration of the email platform."

Trying to "make sense" in what way? In what way would customers expect to "make sense of" a long drawn out technical operation - beyond recognising that it is a long drawn out migration? Most customers, including myself, are not network specialists and are not familiar with Plusnet/BT/Enix network architecture.

If you mean technical issues related to email, setting up client email software, spam, SSL certificates, that is another matter entirely AFAICS. But then, what EE has to do with any of this is largely beyond me...

[#3]

@pvmb That is is exactly the useless dismissive reply that I expected.🙄

[#4]

@RealAleMadrid 

...Could be appropriate?

Anyway: any real issues here remain undefined.

[#5]

@pvmb 

If you mean technical issues related to email, setting up client email software, spam, SSL certificates, that is another matter entirely AFAICS. But then, what EE has to do with any of this is largely beyond me...

Join the many who still don't understand.

[#6]

---

@redsox9 wrote:

@pvmb 

If you mean technical issues related to email, setting up client email software, spam, SSL certificates, that is another matter entirely AFAICS. But then, what EE has to do with any of this is largely beyond me...

Join the many who still don't understand.

---

Ah well! Now THAT (those?) sound like possibly some of the real issues that are of concern to customers. Rather that simply more random waffle about Greenby et al. 😐

[#7]

I don't know why forum members jump on posts and criticise members, surely the criticism should directed at PN, and Greenby, but why we do this in a PN forum I've yet to get my head around.

[#8]

---

@Penny wrote:

---

@glowworm wrote:

I have tried again to access incoming mail and send out a test, without success. This is with old and new passwords.

I see that relay.plus.net hasn't been moved, but I tried changing it to mail.plusnet.enmail.co This didn't go well:

Maybe try mail.enmail.co (?)

As far as I'm aware, the enmail -type address doesn't require 'plusnet' to be included within it.

---

---

@glowworm wrote:

Thanks for the suggestion Penny, I was just following the knowledge base.

---

@glowworm    I was puzzled by your reply - "knowledge base" (?)  and then I found *this* on the greenby website:

https://greenby.com/support/knowledgebase/article/29 

 

Could @plusnettony or @MisterW please confirm if the "outgoing server" settings listed above, are incorrect (?)

If so the greenby page should probably be amended (?)

There are many seeming inconsistencies associated with the "move to greenby".

Firstly whether non-secure connections as recommended by the referenced "article 29" are necessary or whether SSL/TLS connections should be used (with whichever specific ports).

Are customers supposed to use "username" or "e-mail address" to log in to greenby, dependent on which type of original account they may have had with PN or any of the other names such as force9 or whatever (there's a long list of different vISPs [is that the correct terminology?] on the Article 29 page).

Once the 'migration to greenby' has taken place, should mail.enmail.co work as the outgoing server (for all).

Does relay.force9.net "work" (for sending) when relay.plus.net does not (have seen this in various threads on this forum but not entirely sure when this applies).

When a PN customer has been moved to EE and (migrated-to-greenby) mail stops working (because there is no longer PN-account access?) how is this best resolved and what security / server settings, should be used.

There are a lot of (inter-related) questions, but if we could start with the first one above, about whether the settings in Article 29 of the "knowledgebase" are accurate, all this can hopefully be dealt with one step at a time.

Meanwhile - for related background info - there was a thread detailing a long sequence of trying to get Outlook mail setups to work in Windows 11 - see post #13 re plus.com accounts - (29/05/2026 8:44 PM).

Post #18 on that thread - (‎30/05/2026 12:34 AM) - has a screenshot of (the same) "knowledgebase" Article 29 where the server settings are shown differently from the present version.

And post #35 - (‎31/05/2026 11:17 PM) - details exactly how Outlook (by itself) changed the settings from unencrypted to secure, since when all the greenby-migrated stuff seems to have worked just fine.

I've just referenced those three links in case anyone else here is struggling with understanding how any of this fits together.  

Hopefully we can - collectively - figure out solutions that work for all of us.

.

[#9]

@Penny wrote

There are many seeming inconsistencies associated with the "move to greenby".

Firstly whether non-secure connections as recommended by the referenced "article 29" are necessary or whether SSL/TLS connections should be used (with whichever specific ports).

I'm not due to be transferred for another week, but I certainly hope that secure SSL/TLS can continue to be used.  Likewise STARTTLS for SMTP.  (With the appropriate port numbers, as you say.)

One of several inconsistencies in the Greenby webpage is that they say our existing settings should continue to work, presumably including our secure SSL/TLS and STARTTLS.  Then they recommend insecure settings and port numbers, possibly with errors, for anybody setting up a new device.  If the secure settings will work, why not recommend those?  If they won't work, that is very bad news.

@Penny wrote

Does relay.force9.net "work" (for sending) when relay.plus.net does not (have seen this in various threads on this forum but not entirely sure when this applies).

Another inconsistency.  If all our existing settings will work without change, surely that should include relay.plus.net?  What's this rumour about that not being transferred to Greenby?  Why is it necessary to use a totally different enmail.co address?

[#10]

@Penny / @Tim-J  I'll repeat what I have said before: The port settings in the Greenby 'knowledge base' are incorrect as is the suggestion to disable security. The correct port/security settings are as shown here .

[#11]

@Penny 

"Could @plusnettony or @MisterW please confirm if the "outgoing server" settings listed above, are incorrect (?)

If so the greenby page should probably be amended (?)"

Yes, as said previously, in my opinion those port settings (possibly not the hosts name) on that page should be amended. Indeed, they conflict with the general advice for settings given by Greenby in the user's online email account information, which are the settings I always go by - albeit I only have the information in my account for a normal Plusnet account holder. Whether the information there is individuated for the personal email account details (Force9, Madasafish etc.) I do not know.

(A separate issue is I can't personally verify or test these settings as I don't use email client software)

One problem with all this is that different people on the forum keep quoting port settings from either of the above two conflicting sources!

I don't know if anyone (Plusnet?) has taken up this matter with Greenby.

[#12]

@jab1 thanks John and @pvmb 

@Penny to reiterate what's been said above, those settings are not correct, its been brought to the attention of the business before! To suggest using non encrypted connection settings is bad advice from Greenby.

The whole idea behind the way the migration is implemented is that in general users should not have to change any settings. The server URLs e.g mail.plus.net etc can still be used and will remain. Instead of resolving directly to a server, these URLs were changed to resolve to a Greenby proxy. This knows whether an account has been migrated or not and automatically routes the connection to the correct server.

The only expected changes were where people had configured their email clients with the IP address of the mail server.  Where possible, these people were identified and advised directly to change their settings.

There is one exception to the above, for technical reasons it has not currently been possible to change relay.plus.net to point to the proxy but it will do so at some point in the future. This only impacts people who have been migrated to Greenby and do not have a Plusnet broadband account. Their account credentials are no longer valid with relay.plus.net and they need to configure their email client to point directly at the Greenby server (or the proxy) . It is suggested that either mail.enmail.co is used as the direct Greenby server or relay.force9.net used for the proxy.

To muddy the water, there are currently an issue with the latest SSL certificate for relay.plus.net which is causing problems on some legacy devices. 

[#13]

@jab1 

"The port settings in the Greenby 'knowledge base' are incorrect as is the suggestion to disable security. The correct port/security settings are as shown here ."

Where "here" is "What other settings do I need?"

However! That seems to assume an ordinary Plusnet email account for a current Plusnet account holder. Does not cover 'other' email accounts (e.g. Force9) or people now moved to EE. Also... it still does not completely agree with the Greenby online account recommended settings!

Email Client Settings (From my Greenby account)

Incoming Server Address - imap.plus.net
Protocol - IMAP
IMAP Port - 993 (Encryption Enabled)
Outgoing Server Address - relay.plus.net
SMTP Port - 465 (Encryption Enabled)

If you prefer to use the POP protocol rather than IMAP then please use port 995 with Encryption turned on  

[#14]

Thanks, @MisterW . Presumably though, as my client is configured with authentication, and has been for a good 15-20 years, the fact that I had no changes to make at all is correct?

[#15]

Presumably, this confusing 'guidance' from Greenby is because they used AI to generate a lot of it, and failed miserably to validate it.