Re: Balsa 2.2.0 end user impressions

[Craig Routledge <webstuff craigroutledge com>]

> On 07/19/2004 07:53:31 AM, joacher gmx de wrote:
> > SMTP configurations seems painless, too. But a first test mail delivers  
> > a "SMTP server problem (-113): No route to host. Message is left in  
> > outbox". This is misleading. Of course there is a route, I just forgot  
> > to specify a port. In my opinion, if there is no port specified, balsa  
> > should simply use the default of 25.

Current CVS yield the following improved message (libbalsa/send.c ~ line  
1122):

 "SMTP server refused connection.
  Balsa by default uses submission service (587).
  If you want to submit mail using relay service (25),
  specify it explicitly via: "host:smtp".
  Message is left in outbox."

This may be the best route.  Asking the user for information that they may  
not have been given by their ISP (who think that all mail programs connect  
to port 25) is a poor idea for a wizard designed for newbies.

This way the wizard does not ask, but the setting is available.  And the  
user only needs to be concerned with any of this if there is a problem.

On 07/20/2004 11:01:09 AM, Peter Bloomfield wrote:
> Agreed; some might argue that "submission" (587) is the correct default  
> port, but I have yet to find an smtp server that provides it!

So the only question is: what should the default setting be?  I'm all for  
using 587, but I don't see any movement away from SMTP on port 25, and POP3  
for pickup on the vast majority of major ISPs.  Certainly that's what I'm  
stuck with at the moment.

> > Saved messages don't contain their header lines

> I guess needing to save attachments (parts) is more common than needing  
> to export an entire message.  "Save entire message" could be added to the  
> message menu--but there's always pressure to keep the menus shorter, too!

I have often needed this functionality if I want to do something with a  
mail other than forward it.  I found it very strange that a mail client  
would strip out vital information, such as who the mail is from and its  
subject, when saving a mail.  Currently, I have to resort to copying out  
the desired mail from the mail folders.

> > Second, the file name should default to <subject>.eml in the save  
> > dialog.

> Well, not for images, for example?

Indeed, although MIME specifies the filename and Balsa does pick that up.   
So it is only a question of what default to use when dealing with a text  
only message or parts with no filename given.  Right now, Balsa just leaves  
the save filename blank which isn't bad.  And .email might be more clear  
than .eml.  I'm given to understand the .eml is a Microsoft-ism which would  
be understandable to most people, but I hadn't heard of it until recently.   
Most people don't send them.  And it isn't an official MIME type, so  
displaying the MIME type description won't help.

> > The attachment handling isn't very efficient, too. By attaching a file  
> > Balsa suddenly displays a huge attachment frame, wasting a lot of space.
>
> Ah, attachments...much thought and effort has been put into handling  
> _received_ attachments--I guess it's time to turn to _sent_ attachments!

I'm very fond of the new attachment icon that produces a drop-down list of  
message parts.  Perhaps a similar icon could appear alongside for  
attachments added to outgoing messages?  Clicking it could cause an  
interface to pop up which would allow re-naming or deleting already added  
attachments.  Or something like that.

Oh, and I just noticed that the current attachment icon should have a  
tooltip associated with it.