Bug 3612 - auto-configure sets POP=SSL & SMTP=SSL/STARTTLS
Summary: auto-configure sets POP=SSL & SMTP=SSL/STARTTLS
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Claws Mail (GTK 2)
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Other (show other bugs)
Version: 3.14.0
Hardware: PC Linux
: P3 enhancement
Assignee: users
URL:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2016-02-06 03:48 UTC by Pierre Fortin
Modified: 2016-02-10 22:23 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Pierre Fortin 2016-02-06 03:48:18 UTC
Setting up new accounts with auto-configure results in:
POP3 = SSL
SMTP = SSL/STARTTLS

Here's the DNS responses I get on clicking auto-configure:
_pop3s._tcp.pfortin.com: type SRV, class IN, priority 10, weight 1, port 995, target pop-2.luxsci.com
_submission._tcp.pfortin.com: type SRV, class IN, priority 0, weight 1, port 6465, target secure-email-2.luxsci.com

POP3 & SMTP are usually set the same way... this difference may not be obvious to new users.
Comment 1 Pierre Fortin 2016-02-10 22:23:12 UTC
Testing with gmail.com, discovered:

All my GMail accounts are setup as:
 POP3S(995), SMTP(465) & they work with SSL; but SMTP fails with STARTTLS

So I was setting up new accounts based on past history...

Setting up a new CM testing instance, discovered that GMail has apparently made a port change (or started using DNS SRV) such that auto-configure sets:
 POP3S(995) & SMTP(587)

However, after testing {465,587} v. {SSL,STARTTLS}, GMail only accepts:
  465 SSL
  587 STARTTLS
the others fail with:
### SMTP 465 STARTTLS
* Account 'xxx@gmail.com': Connecting to SMTP server: smtp.gmail.com:465...
*** Connection closed by the remote host.
### SMTP 587 SSL
* Account 'xxx@gmail.com': Connecting to SMTP server: smtp.gmail.com:587...
*** SSL handshake failed
*** Error occurred while sending the message.

Servers can pick whatever ports they want and define SSL, STARTTLS or both; so I don't see where it would be possible to use predefined defaults.

Suggest the wizard try to avoid config issues by testing the offered port capabilities as appears to be outlined in 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6186#section-4

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.