Re: Balsa 2.2.0 end user impressions

Am 2004.07.22 17:56 schrieb(en) Craig Routledge:
On 07/21/2004 01:26:12 PM, Albrecht Dreß wrote:
Am 21.07.04 04:11 schrieb(en) Willem Riede:
Could Balsa check whether 587 is available in real time while the smtp
server is being set up?

If there is a connection to the net (or the machine where the mta is running, which might be localhost), this would of course be the optimum solution. It's quite simple - just connect() to 587 and then to 25, and try to read the welcome message string, which should start with "220 ". If 587 replies, set 587, otherwise set 25.

I thought of this, however my ISP doesn't give a connection refused on port 587 -- it just sits there forever. I confirmed this with telnet. So when Balsa tries to send a mail using the default port it just appears to hang. There could be other cases where 587 may be temporarily down and setting the port to 25 may cause confusion and/or breakage. Maybe we just have to add a separate port field in the settings and ...

"SMTP server refused connection.
 Balsa by default uses submission service (587).
 If you want to submit mail using relay service (25),
 specify it explicitly via: "host:smtp".
 Message is left in outbox."

could be changed to:

"SMTP server refused connection.
 Message has been left in outbox.

 Balsa by default uses submission service (587).
 You may try submitting mail using relay service (25),
 specify it in Settings->Preferences->MailServers->Port"

Does this sound better to people?

I don't see the need for such a message - people will ask -> when this damn program know what is wrong then why doesn't it fix itself?

The question in general is why balsa has to use 587 an not 25 - Okay, the rfc says it... Is there any other real-world reason? The HIG and many other usability docs speak of "doing it right and easy for the user" - Where is the problem if EVERYBODY else in this world use 25 as the submission port, why don't we?

There were dozens of questions on this list about this issue - how many people have forsaken (is that the right word?) Balsa because they haven't found it in the FAQ or didn't know where to ask?

The real problem is not how to present it to the user but simply "why isn't Balsa standards-compliant (to the real world, not the rfc)" and why do we have to present it to the user.


\ /  ASCII Ribbon Campaign    |  "The best way to predict
 X  * NO HTML/RTF in e-mail   | the future is to invent it."
/ \ * NO MSWord docs in e-mail|                -- Alan Kay

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]