RE: smtp crap

[Drew Adams]

> > This is nothing but a regression - reporting a bug with `emacs
> > -Q' has never been a problem in past releases.  Why burden 
> > and confuse users now?
> 
> I have personally seen dozens, of emacs bug reports sitting 
> stuck in local mail queues, with the user having no idea that 
> the bug never made it beyond the local workstation.  
> I am not the only one to report this kind of problem. 
> This type of configuration is (as near as we can tell) at 
> least as common now than it was then.

Yes, that is undesirable.

The solution is to simply _mention_ in the bug-report instructions that "IF you
have no mail client and IF you have not yet configured Emacs itself as a mailer,
THEN invoke `M-x XYZ' to so configure it.", where XYZ is a command that leads
you down whatever configuration garden path is required.

IOW, again, let users explicitly _ask_ to configure Emacs, if they want to.

Forcing users to deal with this when they simply want to report a bug is not
TRT.

Yes, if there is no other choice for some user than to configure Emacs as a
mailer right then and there, s?he will do so - it's enough to explain it.  But
all other users can pass over that information, which doesn't concern them.  And
with this approach _no_ user is then forced into a configuration dialog: they
get that only on request.

See the subject line, as a reminder of what this is about: Separate the dialog
for email configuration from bug reporting.  It's as simple as that.  If some
users might need to configure email before being able to report a bug, fine -
they will.  But that logical dependency does not require us to inflict an email
configuration dialog on everyone.