I have the following two classes:

public class StoreService : IStoreService
{
    private IEmailService _emailService;

    public StoreService(IEmailService emailService)
    {
        _emailService = emailService;
    }
}

public class EmailService : IEmailService
{
}

Using Ninject I can set up bindings no problem to get it to inject a concrete implementation of IEmailService into the StoreService constructor. StoreService is actually injected into the code behind of an ASP.NET WebForm as so:

[Ninject.Inject]
public IStoreService StoreService { get; set; }

But now I need to change EmailService to accept an object that contains SMTP related settings (that are pulled from the ApplicationSettings of the Web.config). So I changed EmailService to now look like this:

public class EmailService : IEmailService
{
    private SMTPSettings _smtpSettings;

    public void SetSMTPSettings(SMTPSettings smtpSettings)
    {
        _smtpSettings = smtpSettings;
    }
}

Setting SMTPSettings in this way also requires it to be passed into StoreService (via another public method). This has to be done in the Page_Load method in the WebForms code behind (I only have access to the Settings class in the UI layer).

With manual/poor mans DI I could pass SMTPSettings directly into the constructor of EmailService and then inject EmailService into the StoreService constructor. With Ninject I don't have access to the instances of injected types outside of the objects they are injected to, so I have to set their data AFTER Ninject has already injected them via a separate public setter method. This to me seems wrong.

How should I really be solving this scenario?