AquaMail Forum

English - Android => Bug reports => Topic started by: StR on August 08, 2015, 05:52:10 am

Title: Minor text correction
Post by: StR on August 08, 2015, 05:52:10 am

Kostya,

I just found some awkward text in English (typo?)

When setting up a new account, if the user is not entered correctly for the IMAP server, then
the pop-up error window says:

Quote

Account check error
Incoming mail server (IMAP):
Authentication error. NO Invalid
authentication credentials

Please make sure the data is correct

I think that "NO" should be removed.

Also, while we are at it.
For non-Gmail accounts, it uses user@domain.com as the username.
Is this by design here or just an oversight, - and it is carried over from Gmail/Yahoo accounts?
Usually for corporate and other accounts, only "user" is the username.

Title: Re: Minor text correction
Post by: Kostya Vasilyev on August 08, 2015, 03:05:27 pm

"NO" (as well as "BAD" and "OK") are standard IMAP server response codes:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3501#section-7.1.1

Since they are part of server response(s), the app shows them as is (mostly).

Same with SMTP codes like "535" and so on.

The rest of the error messages(s) are also from the server(s), and typically is/are in English.

Title: Re: Minor text correction
Post by: StR on August 08, 2015, 05:11:12 pm

Quote from: Paris Geek on August 08, 2015, 06:28:52 am

>> For non-Gmail accounts, it uses user@domain.com as the username.

Negative. It uses what should be used, depending on the user server. For some servers, it uses "user" alone.

Try setting up a new non-Gmail, "generic" (i.e. not popular free-services) IMAP account, - that's what you'd choose for private and corporate (non-Exchange) accounts.
Once you entered user@domain.com on the first screen, it propagates it as a login to the IMAP and SMTP screens (if you choose "manual" option for configuration).
IMHO, just "user" portion is more frequently used.

Title: Re: Minor text correction
Post by: StR on August 08, 2015, 08:08:33 pm

Kostya, Paris Geek,
Thanks, I understand now that the complete phrase is the server response. I was guessing that a part of it might be that way, resulting in such a weird mashup.
I understand the idea to pass the message intact.
It is better for debugging problems. (I hate "smart" non-descriptive errors provided by some programs)
... and yet, it looks ugly... :)

Title: Re: Minor text correction
Post by: Kostya Vasilyev on August 08, 2015, 09:29:04 pm

Well, the choices are:

1 - Display server messages as is

2 - Mangle them into some sort of condescending baby talk:

"Your mail server doesn't seem happy, it said, I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

3 - Neither fish nor fowl, and combining the disadvantages of both.

Personally, I hate the second option.

To someone knowledgeable, it hides information that may be useful.

To someone who's not, it's meaningless gibberish either way, so no gain.

It makes providing support more difficult.

And it makes it pretty much impossible to "Google" (or "Bing" or "Yahoo") the error message.

Bottom line -- I think that verbatim error messages are a thousand times better than "baby talk" in terms of helping the user (and me) solve whatever problems may come up.

Title: Re: Minor text correction
Post by: StR on August 10, 2015, 07:41:43 am

Kostya, I agree, that the verbatim message makes sense.
But it takes some effort (or prior knowledge) to understand that it is verbatim. Then the aesthetics is not as demanding.
As a good compromise, maybe (for your consideration):
Server response:
Error message