You may not wish to change this behaviour, but I found it surprising. I have a local MTA so use(d) smtp+none://localhost as my smtp config, and it fails since my MTA is listening on :25 (traditional) and not :587 (unusual I think for a local MTA)
You could attempt a fallback but perhaps that's more complexity than it's worth.
It would be good to document the default port when not specified in the URI, though.
Can I propose a "docs" label?
port 25 is for MTA - MTA communication and not for submission according to RFC 2476
I'm not sure that there is a provider who accepts on port 25 at this age
Rather than opening the ticket, why don't you send a patch implementing the documentation changes?
I'm not sure that there is a provider who accepts on port 25 at this age
Did you read the ticket? The MTA is on localhost. How many people with a local MTA set up submission (or TLS etc)?
Rather than opening the ticket, why don't you send a patch implementing the documentation changes?
Submitting the issue does not proclude me submitting a patch. But perhaps someone else will beat me to it. Thanks for dissuading me from contributing to aerc, though.
Thanks for dissuading me from contributing to aerc, though. Whoa, easy there...
The MTA is on localhost. How many people with a local MTA set up submission (or TLS etc) I wouldn't know. No one can tell. Note that using the submission port doesn't mean that you need TLS. I also can't know what MTA you are using.. postfix / exim / sendmail / OpenSMTPD / ... and therefore don't know how much effort that is (that strongly depends on the software)
The point I wanted to make is that the default port of 587 isn't surprising and aerc probably doesn't need a fallback to 25 as I expect most providers to use the default port. It should probably be documented though as you said, nothing wrong there.
Whoa, easy there...
Sorry. I overreacted.
How many people with a local MTA set up submission (or TLS etc) I wouldn't know. No one can tell.
We could make some educated guesses on some things via sources like Debian popcon, I suppose.
Put another way: why would someone run a local MTA? Most distributions default to not installing one any more. The reason I do is to polyfill over bad UI issues in MUAs, mainly mutt (but it's also useful for aerc, at the moment - e.g. it reduces the impact of #266 or #183)
The point I wanted to make is that the default port of 587 isn't surprising and aerc probably doesn't need a fallback to 25 as I expect most providers to use the default port. It should probably be documented though as you said, nothing wrong there.
For an external SMTP host, you're right, 587 is the sensible choice. And it's also probably not worth either having a fallback attempt to 25, or logic to treat "localhost" differently. So it's just a docs matter, I agree. And I'll try to work on a patch.
docs still the same but no activity and the issue is very minor, should not impact most users