[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#10829: 24.0.93; Error sending bug report -- default SMTP username
From: |
nyc4bos |
Subject: |
bug#10829: 24.0.93; Error sending bug report -- default SMTP username |
Date: |
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:51:48 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.94 (windows-nt) |
Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
> nyc4bos@aol.com writes:
>
>> When trying to send a bug report with a valid email address that is
>> NOT part of (user-login-name), I get a prompt that gives the default
>> SMTP username as the value of (user-login-name).
>
> Your SMTP server requires a user name and password to send email, I take
> it?
Yes.
>
>> If a default is specified, I had expected it to be from the valid
>> "From: " address I provided, not the value of (user-login-name).
>
> I don't think the bit before the "@" sign in the From header is any more
> likely to be the user name you have to give to the SMTP server than
> (user-login-name) is.
In my experience, when required to authenticate to an SMTP server, the
user part (the left of the "@" sign) is almost certainly the username
to give SMTP server.
>
> Emacs just guesses here, and I think (user-login-name) is a perfectly
> valid guess. So I'm closing this bug report.
When creating a bug report (`report-emacs-bug') using (run)emacs -Q,
Emacs has already "just guessed" when it fills in the "From: "
address:
From:
<user-login-name>@<hostname>.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
So when the user explicitly fills in their valid email address, why
should Emacs override the user with a default of its own?
Why shouldn't Emacs just accept what the user has explicitly typed
by default (and allow in prompt for a different user name)?
IOW, exactly the opposite to what you have changed it to (put in its
own default causing the user to have change it yet again).
This is a regression from (at least) Emacs 23, without any overriding
reason that I can discern.
Could you please reconsider?
I believe there should at least be some discussion about this
regression.