GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 623341
Is it just me, or is it nearly impossible to find out that you need to set up SMTP ports like this...
Last modified: 2011-04-06 23:05:08 UTC
Is it just me, or is it nearly impossible to find out that you need to set up SMTP ports like this... smtp.jglock.com:2525 There are MILLIONS of people that don't know what a 'port' IS, much less how to set one up in Evolution's outgoing mail server dialog. I had to dig through Evo's online FAQ to find that out, and even then, it didn't specifically say, "If your outgoing server requires authentication, including a PORT NUMBER, then set it up like this:...(blah, blah, blah)... Always assume that your documentation-reading audiences are NOT familiar with the things that you are _documenting_ That's why we HAVE documentation! By the way, I've been 'doing' computer stuff for 25 years, so I felt REALLY DUMB when I couldn't get Evo to send ANYTHING, until I finally took a chance and _tried_ "smtp.jglock.com:2525" Thanx for listening, Jeffrey D. Glock jdg@jglock.com
Hi, so what is the exact request here?
How's about having a specific field for the port number, or a drop-down or pop-up such as "Enter your outgoing SMTP server in the following format: "server.domain:PORT_#_IF_NEEDED"...? From a programmer's perspective, I assume that tweaking the docs would make the most sense, that way you don't have to recompile any code...but that's assuming that there isn't an example of the proper format in the existing docs. I will admit, just cause I didn't spot it doesn't mean it's not there...as I said, I've been doing this stuff for quite awhile, and I felt like an idiot for not being able to get the outgoing setup right. I had no recollection of ever having to specifically remember "server.domain:PORT_NO", I think MicroSquish and Thunderbird both have a field for the port number...someone may not know that "server.domain:PORT_#_IF_NEEDED" is the proper format for Evolution. I didn't...Acck! jdg
any news for this report?
Support for this was added and it will be in next unstable release (3.1.x) *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 418954 ***
It's been a long time since I actually looked at this posting of mine, but even so, is it really true that you couldn't discern the "exact request here"? I know I'm predisposed to vagueness sometimes, but, come on, you couldn't tell that there's a request to 'clarify' the required format of the outgoing SMTP server entry here?