635911 - Password entry dialog for IMAP accounts is misleading in regards to username

Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 306035

(MailNews Core :: Networking: IMAP, defect)

Description

[Tobias]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7

When Thunderbird asks for the password of an IMAP account, the text in the message says: "Enter your password for [e-mail]@server.com:"
(With the username being [e-mail] and the server Thunderbird is connecting to being server.com).

This can easily lead to the interpretation that Thunderbird tries to log in as "[e-mail]@server.com", which is not the case.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Delete saved password of an imap account
2. Get/Send on the account
3. Look at password prompt dialog
Actual Results:  
Enter your password for [e-mail]@server.com:

Expected Results:  
Enter your password for [e-mail] on server.com:

The Password dialogs for POP3 and IMAP are different. It would be nice if they looked the same.
I personally prefer the title of the IMAP one "Mail Server Password Required" instead of "Enter your password".
At the same time, the POP3 text is easier to understand.

Comment 1

[Tobias]

Attachment: password dialog for imap accounts

Comment 2

[Tobias]

Attachment: password dialog for pop3 accounts

Comment 3

[rsx11m]

Agreed, the "double-@" notation is frequently irritating for the user. The difference is likely that the POP password prompt uses a named property (pop3EnterPasswordPrompt) for which multiple arguments can be specified for formatting, whereas it's IMAP counterpart uses a numerical ID (5047) and GetFormattedStringFromID() doesn't allow to specify multiple strings.

Thus, changing the IMAP property to a named one and porting the code used for POP to IMAP should be reasonable, thus confirming.

Comment 4

[Tobias]

I searched before I created this bug, but apparently I was blind.
Found an earlier bug describing the same issue...

Comment 5

[rsx11m]

No problem. As you can see, I've missed the other one myself when searching
for any existing bugs.