Closed Bug 555105 Opened 12 years ago Closed 10 years ago
SMTP pref dialog should say Port Standard: 587 - not 25
RFC 4409 says that SMTP servers used for mail submission (i.e. the way *we* use SMTP, in contrast to server->server communication) should use port 587 and authentication. Based on the ISP configs I created, almost all ISPs (IIRC all I saw apart from libero.it) support port 587 nowadays. So, given that Port 587 is now the official standard port, and it's broadly supported, I think we should show that as default now - both as label and as default value. Only problem may be when there a server does not support port 587. Maybe even an intranet server. Screenshots: https://bug554404.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=434295 https://bug554404.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=434509
I've just tried my provider - it appears port 587 is NOT available. Its unclear exactly what you're thinking of changing - I think it is fine to change the default as long as we leave all existing users on their current ports (or have an extremely reliable method of detect and fallback so that we don't get the issues with smtp secure auth like we got in the 2 -> 3 upgrade).
> I've just tried my provider - it appears port 587 is NOT available. Which one is that? Do we have it in our ISPDB? As said: wget -m https://live.mozillamessaging.com/autoconfig/ rm *jp (would screw numbers heavily) grep -i "port>587<" *|wc -l 54 grep -i "port>25<" *|wc -l 2 > I think it is fine to change the default as long as we leave all > existing users on their current ports That's what I'm proposing, yes. This change should be only about the SMTP server edit pref dialog, not about the account creation wizard (which already defaults to port 587), nor about existing accounts.
(In reply to comment #2) > > I've just tried my provider - it appears port 587 is NOT available. > > Which one is that? Do we have it in our ISPDB? plus.net, and it isn't in ISPDB because they use subdomains (i.e. <username>.plus.com) and hence autocofig doesn't support it. My point was although ISPDB only has one provider that doesn't support port 587 that doesn't mean there are plenty of others not in ISPDB. Although I think that generally promoting the new port doesn't hurt anyway.
Port 25 in Thunderbird and Windows 7. Have just set up a computer with Win7 at home and ran into the port 25 issue. Spent two days trying to resolve it. Had my pc at work and still had my old pc at home as comparisons on settings. Resolved the issue last night with Win7 after following many suggestions here and all over the internet, none of which worked. The port wasn't the issue! The IP address was. My IP address was showing "mail.comcast.net", which is correct for incoming, but I kept changing the port numbers and the SSL, etc. Win7 apparently does not supply the prefix of SMTP to the IP address in contacting the IP. Once I noticed the IP address(!), I changed the address to "smtp.comcast.net" (without the quotation marks), the port automatically changed to 25, Clicked on the "No" button to the 'encryption' (SSL, etc.) doo-dads, and the email I had been working with, trying to send, suddenly processed, a window popped up asking for my password, I entered it and off went the email! Duhh! I know it got through because I received a reply this morning! Hope this helps anyone working with Win7.
> The port wasn't the issue! So, please don't post it in a bug which is about the port only.
Right. Point of view is everything. I'll also unmembership myself. OK?
(In reply to John from comment #8) > Right. > Point of view is everything. > I'll also unmembership myself. > OK? No need to feel offended.
What about showing both ports like this? I haven't seen port 587 used on the main webmail providers in our country. Maybe is works but are not advertised in official manuals.
Assignee: nobody → acelists
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #574176 - Flags: review?(mbanner)
Comment on attachment 574176 [details] [diff] [review] patch, showing both ports This bug is about changing it to 587, not suggesting both. *If* we were to suggest both, we'd could just do const DEFAULT_SMTP_PORT = "587 (25)"; and achieve the same as with your patch, as far as I understand it.
Attachment #574176 - Flags: review?(mbanner) → review-
That would not work, as the same string is set as the initial value of the pref. I think showing both suggestions would help more people. I'll change to one as you wish.
Yes, I would prefer to show only 587 as "default" port, because that's the official standard and supported by the majority of ISPs. People can still change it to 25 based on instructions from their ISP or whatever. Note that this doesn't affect the configuration wizard for the first setup (we would find the right port automatically there), only people who specifically change their settings.
Comment on attachment 574360 [details] [diff] [review] patch, changing 25 to 587 Ok, I *think* this is fine. The code always seems to set the value in preferences regardless of it is default or not. I do wonder if we shouldn't change other default ports as well, e.g.: http://mxr.mozilla.org/comm-central/source/mailnews/compose/public/nsISmtpUrl.idl#106 but then I'm a bit concerned about older versions of Thunderbird not having a default set, and messing up people's configurations. Therefore I'd like David to take a look at this as well and get his opinion.
Is BenB's r+ enough? Or do we need still need David's review?
(In reply to :aceman from comment #16) > Is BenB's r+ enough? Or do we need still need David's review? You'll need david's review too.
Comment on attachment 574360 [details] [diff] [review] patch, changing 25 to 587 I think this is the right thing to do, and only affects editing of the ssl setting, so it shouldn't break any existing profiles.
Attachment #574360 - Flags: review?(dbienvenu) → review+
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Product: Thunderbird → MailNews Core
QA Contact: account-manager → account-manager
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Thunderbird 11.0
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.