Feedback: Textpattern CMS 4.9.0 beta.2 released

Bloke · 2025-03-19 09:55:39

hidalgo wrote #339326:

Thanks for taking a look! The problem I’m having is with core Textpattern emails.

Are you using enhanced mail or SMTP settings or is this (as I suspect) using built in mail()?

hidalgo · 2025-03-19 23:41:45

Bloke wrote #339327:

Are you using enhanced mail or SMTP settings or is this (as I suspect) using built in mail()?

Yes, I was just using the standard Textpattern setup as is, but have now enabled ‘enhanced mail’ and this solves the header problem. Thanks for the tip!

Bloke · 2025-03-19 23:44:55

hidalgo wrote #339336:

Yes, I was just using the standard Textpattern setup as is, but have now enabled ‘enhanced mail’ and this solves the header problem. Thanks for the tip!

In which case, it’s definitely the Encode class that’s wrong. Thanks for confirming. I’ll fix it.

Bloke · 2025-03-20 01:02:47

Okay, please try the old regular (not enhanced) mail now and see if this commit fixes it.

I’ve also patched the 4.9.0 branch of com_connect with the same code.

hidalgo · 2025-03-20 02:15:47

Bloke wrote #339338:

Okay, please try the old regular (not enhanced) mail now and see if this commit fixes it.

I’ve pulled the latest dev branch and disabled the enhanced mail option, but unfortunately the headers are still broken with this option off.

I’ve also installed the 4.9.0 branch of com_connect and it’s the same, but works correctly with enhanced mail enabled.

Bloke · 2025-03-20 10:42:42

Hmmm drat. I was hoping that would fix it. Thanks for testing.

More research required. Leave it with me.

phiw13 · 2025-03-21 03:19:46

Pop help for “Use enhanced mail features”, the last two sentences read:

“Switching to ‘Yes’ can improve deliverability. Using SMTP will often further enhance deliverability.”

Isn’t this a little duplicate? (or maybe just unclear?)

hidalgo · 2025-03-21 06:55:07

phiw13 wrote #339346:

Isn’t this a little duplicate? (or maybe just unclear?)

From my testing, enhanced mail doesn’t need the SMTP settings filled in to work, so that would be the first level of improved deliverability. Then adding SMTP settings would be the second level of enhanced deliverability.

Bloke · 2025-03-21 07:23:12

hidalgo wrote #339347:

enhanced mail doesn’t need the SMTP settings filled in to work, so that would be the first level of improved deliverability. Then adding SMTP settings would be the second level of enhanced deliverability.

This is correct. The first “layer” simply switches from using mail() to using PHPMailer. The latter is a lot more fully featured, supports HTML email out of the box and is more widely regarded among email servers and recipients as a “trusted” source. Thus it can improve deliverability simply by using it via the enhanced email option.

The big daddy is SMTP because you have complete control over signing and security and whatnot, which steps up your game through the eyes of the servers handling your messages.

phiw13 wrote #339346:

Isn’t this a little duplicate? (or maybe just unclear?)

If you think the text can be improved or needs stuff adding to it to make the separation clearer, by all means suggest edits.

phiw13 · 2025-03-21 07:44:14

hidalgo wrote #339347:

From my testing, enhanced mail doesn’t need the SMTP settings filled in to work, so that would be the first level of improved deliverability. Then adding SMTP settings would be the second level of enhanced deliverability.

Hmm. That is one other way of looking at it… When viewing the settings, I am always lead to believe “enhanced mail” needs those SMTP settings to perform its magic. Your understanding –and confirmed by Bloke– make the SMTP settings actually optional and an extra layer of deliverability.

Bloke wrote #339348:

If you think the text can be improved or needs stuff adding to it to make the separation clearer, by all means suggest edits.

Perhaps changing something in the last sentence to:

“Additionally, using SMTP will provide better compatibility with some email providers and further enhance deliverability.”

(and eventually add something from this: ”The big daddy is SMTP because you have complete control over signing and security and whatnot, which steps up your game through the eyes of the servers handling your messages.”

Bloke · 2025-03-21 08:23:46

phiw13 wrote #339349:

When viewing the settings, I am always lead to believe “enhanced mail” needs those SMTP settings to perform its magic.

Right, yes, the interface isn’t obvious that those are a level-up option. Couldn’t think of a way to enable it (beyond a three-way radio, which complicates code later as we’d need to check two scenarios that use PHPMailer – one with, one without SMTP).

Ideas welcome to enhance UX clarity.

Perhaps changing something in the last sentence to:

“Additionally, using SMTP will provide better compatibility with some email providers and further enhance deliverability.”

Will do, plus some more details on SMTP and its optional nature.

phiw13 · 2025-03-21 11:49:12

Bloke wrote #339350:

Right, yes, the interface isn’t obvious that those are a level-up option. Couldn’t think of a way to enable it (beyond a three-way radio, which complicates code later as we’d need to check two scenarios that use PHPMailer – one with, one without SMTP).

Ideas welcome to enhance UX clarity.

No not immediately. Best I could think earlier today:
On row 1: Use enhanced […] Yes/No (radio). Clicking Yes opens a row2 / second field: (additionally) use SMTP Yes/No (radio). Yes then opens SMTP details.

I suspect that will put you in some knots, code wise. And I don’t think it really improves or clarifies the hierarchy.

–^–

Not sure if this is a core issue or a plugin problem: when using the basic enhanced email setting and com_connect latest (4.9), there is double X-Mailer header:

X-Mailer: PHPMailer 6.9.3 (https://github.com/PHPMailer/PHPMailer)
X-Mailer: Textpattern

Screenshot: dev.l-c-n.com/_b/x-mailer_phpmail.png, as seen in Mail.app (“he likes it soo much, he sends it twice”)

Bloke · 2025-03-21 12:47:17

phiw13 wrote #339351:

Best I could think earlier today:
On row 1: Use enhanced […] Yes/No (radio). Clicking Yes opens a row2 / second field: (additionally) use SMTP Yes/No (radio). Yes then opens SMTP details.

Hmm, yeah, a three-way toggle in two radios. Still not fun from a code standpoint

I’ve tweaked the wording of the pophelp as per your recommendation for now (in the pophelp repo, not merged to dev yet). That might help a bit, but it would be nice to mark the SMTP block as optional somehow.

Not sure if this is a core issue or a plugin problem: when using the basic enhanced email setting and com_connect latest (4.9), there is double X-Mailer header.

Pants. I’ll investigate, thank you. Suspect the plugin is adding it indiscriminately.

phiw13 · 2025-03-21 13:26:14

Bloke wrote #339352:

[…] That might help a bit, but it would be nice to mark the SMTP block as optional somehow.

Alternative:

Add a small informative text note right after the h3?

There is a .txp-form-field-instructions class for that purpose, but on the Preferences panel, it sends the text to the far side. It is originally intended as help text aligned with the input fields (see prefs for glz_custom-fields).

An alternative maybe: set it to .secondary-text, that will align it with the headline
see: dev.l-c-n.com/txp-4.9/txp-admin-prefs.html

Bloke · 2025-03-21 15:10:32

phiw13 wrote #339353:

Add a small informative text note right after the h3?

That’s a fab ida. I’m not sure the prefs panel is geared up to display stuff likevthat though, because it’s all automated and driven from the database. We do have the _instructions feature for textpack secondary information, but I think (as you say) this is just for fields, not labels and headings.

To do this kind of thing will require us to wire up a different type of undocumented notes feature for labels and/or headings. I’ll take a look.

Textpattern CMS support forum

#16 2025-03-19 09:55:39

Re: Feedback: Textpattern CMS 4.9.0 beta.2 released

hidalgo wrote #339326:

#17 2025-03-19 23:41:45

Re: Feedback: Textpattern CMS 4.9.0 beta.2 released

Bloke wrote #339327:

#18 2025-03-19 23:44:55

Re: Feedback: Textpattern CMS 4.9.0 beta.2 released

hidalgo wrote #339336:

#19 2025-03-20 01:02:47

Re: Feedback: Textpattern CMS 4.9.0 beta.2 released

#20 2025-03-20 02:15:47

Re: Feedback: Textpattern CMS 4.9.0 beta.2 released

Bloke wrote #339338:

#21 2025-03-20 10:42:42

Re: Feedback: Textpattern CMS 4.9.0 beta.2 released

#22 2025-03-21 03:19:46

Re: Feedback: Textpattern CMS 4.9.0 beta.2 released

#23 2025-03-21 06:55:07

Re: Feedback: Textpattern CMS 4.9.0 beta.2 released

phiw13 wrote #339346:

#24 2025-03-21 07:23:12

Re: Feedback: Textpattern CMS 4.9.0 beta.2 released

hidalgo wrote #339347:

phiw13 wrote #339346:

#25 2025-03-21 07:44:14

Re: Feedback: Textpattern CMS 4.9.0 beta.2 released

hidalgo wrote #339347:

Bloke wrote #339348:

#26 2025-03-21 08:23:46

Re: Feedback: Textpattern CMS 4.9.0 beta.2 released

phiw13 wrote #339349:

#27 2025-03-21 11:49:12

Re: Feedback: Textpattern CMS 4.9.0 beta.2 released

Bloke wrote #339350:

#28 2025-03-21 12:47:17

Re: Feedback: Textpattern CMS 4.9.0 beta.2 released

phiw13 wrote #339351:

#29 2025-03-21 13:26:14

Re: Feedback: Textpattern CMS 4.9.0 beta.2 released

Bloke wrote #339352:

#30 2025-03-21 15:10:32

Re: Feedback: Textpattern CMS 4.9.0 beta.2 released

phiw13 wrote #339353:

Board footer