Outlook automatically using next SMTP server

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Dorian

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 5:46:40 AM1/24/05
to
Hi,

I recently upgraded from Outlook 2000 to 2003. I'm using my portable both at
work and at home. The following problem didn't occur in OL2000, but does
always occur in 2003:

Since I'm using my portable in different locations, I have to change my SMTP
server settings each time I come home or return to work. I have several
E-mail accounts, so I sometimes forget to change all settings (e.g. when I
just need to send out a mail quickly).

Now, when the chosen SMTP server isn't available (because I forgot to change
it to the correct one), OL 2000 used to just give me an error message (e.g.
because the SMTP server didn't support relaying, which was fine - it just
reminded me of changing my settings).

In OL2003, when account A doesn't work, Outlook itself just decides to try
my next mail account in the list (say account B) and tries to send the mail
using that account's SMTP server. If that succeeds, it also uses B's
settings like "Your Name" and B's return address. So even though I think my
mail is being sent with account A, it is in fact sent using all settings of
account B.

Why did Microsoft change this behaviour? And is it possible to prevent it?
It would not be bad to just use the next SMTP server, if the other settings
like visible name and return address of the original account were being
used. But this is not the case...

Thanks for any input!

Dorian


neo [mvp outlook]

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 7:45:59 AM1/24/05
to
You have found a known bug with Outlook 2003 and MS is working on an update.
The only solution is to authenticate to the SMTP server which will hopefully
allow the send.

"Dorian" <dor...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ct2jmg$itn$1...@ikaria.belnet.be...

AN

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 8:09:10 AM1/24/05
to
Hi Neo,

Can you kindly proveide me the article which states this in the MS
website?

Regards

AN

"neo [mvp outlook]" <n...@online.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uGNyoKhA...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

neo [mvp outlook]

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 8:20:17 AM1/24/05
to
It isn't published yet. (best you can do is scan this newsgroup or
microsoft.public.outlook.general for posts by Jeff Stephenson [MSFT])

"AN" <meets...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uslkmXhA...@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

Dorian

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 8:51:35 AM1/24/05
to
This seems to refer to the same problem (though for slightly different
reasons):

http://www.google.be/groups?hl=nl&lr=&threadm=xjfsjggj3fxv.dlg%40jeff.stephenson.microsoft.com&rnum=7&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dgroup:microsoft.public.outlook%2Bauthor:Stephenson%2BSMTP%2Baccount%2Bbug%26hl%3Dnl%26lr%3D%26selm%3Dxjfsjggj3fxv.dlg%2540jeff.stephenson.microsoft.com%26rnum%3D7

Hoping for this fix to be released soon! ;-)

Thanks for the info, Neo.

Dorian


"neo [mvp outlook]" <n...@online.mvps.org> wrote in message

news:ulDBzdhA...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

Jeff Stephenson [MSFT]

unread,
Jan 24, 2005, 2:23:20 PM1/24/05
to
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:51:35 +0100, Dorian wrote:

This is almost certainly the problem you're having. I think it's unlikely
that this will be released as a hotfix - all cases of this problem that
I've seen have been fixed by authenticating to the outgoing server, so
there's no benefit to having a hotfix. The fix will be included in the
next service pack, though.

--
Jeff Stephenson
Outlook Development
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights

Dorian

unread,
Jan 26, 2005, 3:05:15 AM1/26/05
to
> This is almost certainly the problem you're having. I think it's unlikely
> that this will be released as a hotfix - all cases of this problem that
> I've seen have been fixed by authenticating to the outgoing server, so
> there's no benefit to having a hotfix. The fix will be included in the
> next service pack, though.

Actually, I tested your suggestion, but requiring authenticating in
itself does NOT fix my problem.

Let me give some more background: I have 3 mail accounts (A, B, C).
A is associated with my main work account and uses POP/SMTP server SA.
B is associated with my home ISP connection and uses POP/SMTP server SB.
C is associated with another company's account, using POP/SMTP server SC.

I am using a VPN connection to access account C's server, so I don't
have to change its servers whether I'm at work or at home.
For accounts A and B, I do have to change the outgoing SMTP server each
time I switch between home and work: at work I use SMTP server SA, at
home I use SMTP server SB.

Now what happens when I come to work and forget to change A and B's SMTP
servers (which are still set to SB) and I want to send a mail through
account A? Outlook cannot authenticate with SB, so it switches to
account B's SMTP server. Since that also uses SB as outgoing server,
Outlook switches to account C's SMTP server. That one does work (it
always works), so Outlook sends out my mail through server SC, with
account C's details like company name. Of course, this is not a
desirable situation...

Requiring all servers to authenticate doesn't help here: if the
authentication fails, Outlook still goes on with the next account in the
list.

The only way to prevent all this from happening is to set all three
accounts' outgoing server to either SA (when at work) or SB (when at
home). If I then forget to change the outgoing servers when needed, all
accounts will fail. So there _is_ a workaround, but it sure is a nasty
thing if I forget to change one of the outgoing servers (which happened
to me several times already...) I still don't see the point of using
another account's personal details, even when using that account's SMTP
server...

Cheers,

Dorian

Jeff Stephenson [MSFT]

unread,
Jan 26, 2005, 1:17:54 PM1/26/05
to
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:05:15 +0100, Dorian wrote:

> For accounts A and B, I do have to change the outgoing SMTP server each
> time I switch between home and work: at work I use SMTP server SA, at
> home I use SMTP server SB.

Why do you have to do this? Is it an issue of port 25 being blocked at
work, or something else? It seems to me that you should be able to use
your ISP account regardless of whether you're at work or home (if your ISP,
like many, blocks port 25, you couldn't use your work server from home).

> I still don't see the point of using another account's personal details,
> even when using that account's SMTP server...

While it's true that this doesn't make sense in a pure SMTP mail
environment, it's a result of the fact that Outlook is not just an Internet
mail program. Unlike most mail programs, Outlook's design allows for
pretty much any proprietary mail protocol - there has been support for
cc:Mail, Lotus Notes, MS Mail, and a number of other proprietary protocols.

So if you had, say, a POP3 account and a cc:Mail account, how do you send a
single message to recipients of both types? The answer is to send to the
POP3 user via the POP3 account and the cc:Mail user via the cc:Mail
account. But to do so you have to use the identity for each account when
sending so that the recipient can reply - cc:Mail won't understand an SMTP
address or vice versa.

Dorian

unread,
Jan 27, 2005, 4:38:09 AM1/27/05
to
Jeff Stephenson [MSFT] wrote:
>>For accounts A and B, I do have to change the outgoing SMTP server each
>>time I switch between home and work: at work I use SMTP server SA, at
>>home I use SMTP server SB.
>
> Why do you have to do this? Is it an issue of port 25 being blocked at
> work, or something else? It seems to me that you should be able to use
> your ISP account regardless of whether you're at work or home (if your ISP,
> like many, blocks port 25, you couldn't use your work server from home).

Both servers (the home ISP server and the work SMTP server) prevent mail
relaying by checking if the sender's IP address is in their own domain
or not. It's logical that I cannot send mail from my work network
through my home ISP's SMTP server (and vice versa), because that would
open up their servers for relaying.

>>I still don't see the point of using another account's personal details,
>>even when using that account's SMTP server...
>
>
> While it's true that this doesn't make sense in a pure SMTP mail
> environment, it's a result of the fact that Outlook is not just an Internet
> mail program. Unlike most mail programs, Outlook's design allows for
> pretty much any proprietary mail protocol - there has been support for
> cc:Mail, Lotus Notes, MS Mail, and a number of other proprietary protocols.
>
> So if you had, say, a POP3 account and a cc:Mail account, how do you send a
> single message to recipients of both types? The answer is to send to the
> POP3 user via the POP3 account and the cc:Mail user via the cc:Mail
> account. But to do so you have to use the identity for each account when
> sending so that the recipient can reply - cc:Mail won't understand an SMTP
> address or vice versa.

OK, I see that now. Thanks for the explanation!

Dorian

Jeff Stephenson [MSFT]

unread,
Jan 27, 2005, 2:08:11 PM1/27/05
to
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:38:09 +0100, Dorian wrote:

> Both servers (the home ISP server and the work SMTP server) prevent mail
> relaying by checking if the sender's IP address is in their own domain
> or not. It's logical that I cannot send mail from my work network
> through my home ISP's SMTP server (and vice versa), because that would
> open up their servers for relaying.

Most modern servers can prevent relaying by doing so only if you
authenticate (prove your identity) to the server. You might try turning on
authentication to your outgoing server (on the "Outgoing server" tab of the
account) and see if either server will let you send from a non-local IP.

If the ISP's server you're using doesn't support authentication, you might
contact the ISP and see if they have a server that does. For example, my
ISP is Earthlink and for a long time I sent via mail.mindspring.com, which
doesn't support authentication, so when at work I had to do as you do and
set my server to the company's server. Then I found out that
smtpauth.earthlink.net *does* do authentication, and now I just send via
that all the time, home or work.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages