212314 - Maximum number of server connections to cache isn't persistent.

Status: RESOLVED EXPIRED

(SeaMonkey :: MailNews: Account Configuration, defect)

Description

[Dale Anson]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624

The "maximum number of server connections to cache" setting isn't persistent. In
my case, I am using an IMAP server with mail stored in 12 folders. When I open
the 6th folder, I get a message about "the maximum number of cached connections
has been exceeded". To circumvent this error, I try to set the "maximum number
of server connections to cache" to 0 instead of the default 5. This works for
the current session only, the next time I start Mozilla Mail, I have to apply
the setting again.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Open Mozilla Mail.
2. Go to Edit, Mail & Newsgroup Account Settings, select "Server Settings", then
click the "Advanced" button.
3. Change the "Maximum number of server connections to cache" to any number
other than 5.
4. Save and close.
5. Restart Mozilla Mail, repeat steps 1 and 2. Setting will be 5.

Actual Results:  
Maximum number of server connections to cache is set to 0 for the current
session.  After restarting Mozilla Mail, the setting is 5.

Expected Results:  
Maximum number of server connections to cache is set to 0 for the current
session.  After restarting Mozilla Mail, the setting should be 0.

This is can be reproduced on Linux using the same Mozilla version. This bug has
actually existed for the past several Mozilla releases.

Comment 1

[Kay Ramme]

Hi, it seems that this bug also prevents one from roaming with a laptop computer
and keeping the mozilla mail session. E.g. if I switch to another room, where I
get a new IP address, the currently open mail client hangs and there is no other
way to get rid of it as to kill it. This is mozilla 1.4 under Linux.

Comment 2

[Dale Anson]

I originally posted this against Mozilla 1.4. Similar behaviour is found in
Thunderbird 0.3 rc2, except Thunderbird doesn't give the warning message,
instead, it just doesn't do anything.

Comment 3

[Joseph Tate]

I can confirm this behavior in thunderbird 0.5 (20040207).  I connect through a
firewall, and when the connection is broken at the firewall, the next mail
connection fails with "Server <myserver> has disconnected.  The server may have
gone down or there may be a network problem."  I get a copy of this message for
every connection that was cached, though I had set the # of cached connections
to 0.  I'll file a bug on the disconnected message or comment on the existing if
there is one.

Comment 4

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This is an automated message, with ID "auto-resolve01".

This bug has had no comments for a long time. Statistically, we have found that
bug reports that have not been confirmed by a second user after three months are
highly unlikely to be the source of a fix to the code.

While your input is very important to us, our resources are limited and so we
are asking for your help in focussing our efforts. If you can still reproduce
this problem in the latest version of the product (see below for how to obtain a
copy) or, for feature requests, if it's not present in the latest version and
you still believe we should implement it, please visit the URL of this bug
(given at the top of this mail) and add a comment to that effect, giving more
reproduction information if you have it.

If it is not a problem any longer, you need take no action. If this bug is not
changed in any way in the next two weeks, it will be automatically resolved.
Thank you for your help in this matter.

The latest beta releases can be obtained from:
Firefox:     http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/
Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5beta1.html
Seamonkey:   http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

Comment 5

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This bug has been automatically resolved after a period of inactivity (see above
comment). If anyone thinks this is incorrect, they should feel free to reopen it.