I did a lot of testing with multiple accounts settings recently. I found the most demanding feature there is SMTP management. I have listed several bugs for this. My account setting has a multitude of email addresses (i.e. one per account) split over several host accounts with *the same provider, i.e. the same server address*. This might be an important information for bug search / design topics. This bug: POP server entries, unnecessary baleful uniqueness check for user names (?) The story goes like this: I have 3 GMX host accounts, each of them can hold up to ten email addresses. Say I defined 15 email addresses spread over these three host accounts. In Mozilla one address makes up one "Account", so I need to define 15 Mozilla Acounts. According to prevailing philosophy it would suffice to have just three SMTP entries, say #START LIST mail.gmx.de : 1425678 mail.gmx.de : 1425899 mail.gmx.de : 9839829 #END LIST The numbers are the host user names (see Bug #147010 for this listing appearance), one for each host account. Now, Mozilla makes such economy difficult because it automatically inserts a new SMTP entry (identical with the POP server definition) during setting up a new Account. Here it checks for uniqueness of host user names (for POP server definition). It is not possible to enter the same host account identity for several Mozilla Accounts. As a result I have to apply an alternative host user name consisting of the email address. By this my SMTP server list automatically grows linear with the number of Mozilla Accounts; I can reduce it manually aftermatch. Resumee: I cannot see why uniqueness is necessary for entering host identities for POP server definition. Because there are more than one benefits from it, I suggest to remove that restriction. Furthermore, the program object that controls SMTP list should prevent double entries for the pair <hostname> : <username>. By this the SMTP list will stay at a minimum extent (as originally intended). - Wolf Eichler
Reporter: Can you reproduce this bug with a recent build of Mozilla (for example, 1.4 RC1)? If so, then please comment again with details. If not, then please resolve this bug as WORKSFORME. Thanks.
no response-->resolving wfm
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → WORKSFORME
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.