User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 I access a single POP account from many different locations, and change locations several times a day. Mozilla works great for receiving mail, but to send mail I keep having to go through the configuration dialogs to change the SMTP server, since my base SMTP server doesn't support authenticated relay. What I want is a dropdown or other appropriate UI widget on the compose window that allows me to select the outgoing SMTP server (from the list of configured servers) to be used for *that single message*. The widget value should be initialized to the default server for the sending identity, but I should be able to select any configured SMTP server. Usage scenario: Account jhg@abc.com has default SMTP server smtp.abc.com. smtp.abc.com does not support relay except from within the abc.com internal LAN. I am currently at a client's office and wish to send an email using that account. I cannot use the client's SMTP servers, but I have another account with server smtp.xyz.com that does support TLS and authentication for relay. I can go through the Mail & News Preferences dialog to change the SMTP server for the abc.com account, but then when I return to the office LAN I have to change it back again. I may end up having to do this several times a day. What I want is to compose the message and then be able to select smtp.xyz.com as the outgoing server for that one message without disturbing the default SMTP server assignment for the account. Based on perusing the existing enhancement requests, (i.e. 167505, 228039, others) it may be that what's needed is a general re-design of EMail identity management (assuming that's not already being done). Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.

This issue is covered in a lot of bugs already - see bug 202468 comment 18 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 202468 ***

oh btw.. this is a closer dup of bug 100267 which was resolved as dup of bug 52384, but I find the initial wording in that one too vague to cover the UI aspects. Thus the dup'ing against bug 202468. If you prefer to dup against bug 100267 or similar instead, please do.