Adding a CC to a Mailto: link

Discussion in 'HTML' started by gcc, Feb 24, 2005.

  1. gcc

    gcc Guest

    Is it possible?
    If So How?

    Thanks
     
    gcc, Feb 24, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. gcc

    Philip Ronan Guest

    Philip Ronan, Feb 24, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. in alt.html, gcc wrote:
    > Is it possible?


    No

    > If So How?


    It doesn't work always, or even likely.
    http://www.html-faq.com/email/?mailto

    Use server side script, or use procmail on receiving end to send copy...

    --
    Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
    Utrecht, NL.
     
    Lauri Raittila, Feb 24, 2005
    #3
  4. gcc

    gcc Guest

    And if I wanted to add a Subject?

    mailto:?Cc=?Subject=example
     
    gcc, Feb 24, 2005
    #4
  5. gcc wrote:
    > And if I wanted to add a Subject?
    >
    > mailto:?Cc=?Subject=example


    mailto:?Cc=&Subject=example

    Note the ampersand (&), not a question mark. As stated in another reply,
    it's better practice to use a script if possible. The link method cannot
    be relied on to work the same across all situations, especially the Cc bit.
    --
    Michael Wilcox
     
    Michael Wilcox, Feb 24, 2005
    #5
  6. gcc

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Mark Parnell, Feb 24, 2005
    #6
  7. gcc wrote:

    > Is it possible?
    > If So How?


    Use an email address your server (or client if you need the poor-man's
    solution) will forward to additional address(es) of your choice.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    David Dorward, Feb 24, 2005
    #7
  8. gcc

    Philip Ronan Guest

    Philip Ronan, Feb 24, 2005
    #8
  9. gcc

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Previously in alt.html, Philip Ronan <> said:
    > Mark Parnell wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.isolani.co.uk/articles/mailto.html

    >
    > This page is about the pitfalls of using "mailto:" to submit HTML forms. It
    > has nothing to do with mailto links.


    They are still just as unreliable, though admittedly without some of the
    more dangerous security problems.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
     
    Mark Parnell, Feb 24, 2005
    #9
  10. gcc

    Philip Ronan Guest

    Mark Parnell wrote:

    > Previously in alt.html, Philip Ronan <> said:
    >> Mark Parnell wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.isolani.co.uk/articles/mailto.html

    >>
    >> This page is about the pitfalls of using "mailto:" to submit HTML forms. It
    >> has nothing to do with mailto links.

    >
    > They are still just as unreliable, though admittedly without some of the
    > more dangerous security problems.


    That's untrue. For a start there's no possibility of the visitor *thinking*
    that something has been sent when in fact it hasn't. It's also valid HTML.
    Saying it's invalid because a client's system might not have a correctly
    configured email client is like saying that Flash content is unacceptable
    because not all browsers support it.

    The only real drawback of mailto links is the spam factor.

    --
    phil [dot] ronan @ virgin [dot] net
    http://vzone.virgin.net/phil.ronan/
     
    Philip Ronan, Feb 24, 2005
    #10
  11. gcc

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Previously in alt.html, Philip Ronan <> said:

    [mailto: links]
    > That's untrue. For a start there's no possibility of the visitor *thinking*
    > that something has been sent when in fact it hasn't.


    No, but they can click on a link and nothing happen at all. IMHO that's
    just as bad, and doesn't look good for the company who owns the site.

    > It's also valid HTML.


    Lots of things are valid; that doesn't mean they are good practise.

    > Saying it's invalid because a client's system might not have a correctly
    > configured email client is like saying that Flash content is unacceptable
    > because not all browsers support it.


    Apples and oranges. We're talking about putting something in place to
    allow your customers to contact you. If it doesn't work for everyone,
    it's not acceptable.

    Flash on the other hand, as long as it's used appropriately, isn't an
    issue, because the site should still be usable without it. Those with
    Flash get the bells and whistles, those without still have access to
    everything on the site, albeit a little plainer.

    > The only real drawback of mailto links is the spam factor.


    There is that too.

    FWIW, I don't have a problem with including a mailto: link on a site. I
    certainly wouldn't include anything more than the email address in it
    (besides the fact that it is invalid and unreliable, who am I to tell
    the visitor what they want to contact me about?). But it is *never* a
    substitute for a proper form. Use both in tandem if you want, but always
    include a server-side method of contact.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
     
    Mark Parnell, Feb 24, 2005
    #11
  12. gcc

    Philip Ronan Guest

    Mark Parnell wrote:

    > FWIW, I don't have a problem with including a mailto: link on a site. I
    > certainly wouldn't include anything more than the email address in it
    > (besides the fact that it is invalid and unreliable, who am I to tell
    > the visitor what they want to contact me about?). But it is *never* a
    > substitute for a proper form. Use both in tandem if you want, but always
    > include a server-side method of contact.


    That's precisely what I'm doing already. Forms are useful in some cases, but
    they don't help when people want to send attachments, or keep a copy of
    their outgoing mail on their system, for example. And what's to stop people
    adding a subject if they want to? I see it used a lot these days (e.g.,
    <mailto:?subject=subscribe>)

    BTW, the alt.html FAQ is talking complete b*ll*cks on this issue (I know it
    wasn't you that brought it up, but anyhow...). It says that "most of the
    programs use RFC822 (where ? is an illegal email address character)", and
    that the newer RFC2396 is still generally unsupported.

    In fact both those RFCs are now obsolete. "mailto:" URLs are covered by
    RFC2368, which is about 7 years old and pretty much universally supported.
    If your software can't handle RFC2368 URLs, then it's probably incompatible
    with HTTP/1.1 as well which means you'll have much bigger problems than the
    occasional defunct email link. For starters, your browser won't know
    anything about "Host" request headers, and won't be able to view any of the
    millions of websites on virtual hosts.

    The FAQ also links to some rather old and rather incorrect references. For
    example, <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/faq.htm> provides this as an
    example:

    <mailto:?subject="I%20visited%20your%20site"&cc="anotheru
    ">

    And then goes on to say that it isn't supported because of the incorrect
    syntax. Well that's only because of the bare double quotes that haven't been
    escaped to %22. The presence of the question mark has nothing to do with it.

    Essentially there is *nothing* wrong with including a subject line in a
    mailto link.

    --
    phil [dot] ronan @ virgin [dot] net
    http://vzone.virgin.net/phil.ronan/
     
    Philip Ronan, Feb 25, 2005
    #12
  13. gcc

    gcc Guest


    >
    > mailto:?Cc=&Subject=example
    >
    > Note the ampersand (&), not a question mark. As stated in another reply,
    > it's better practice to use a script if possible. The link method cannot
    > be relied on to work the same across all situations, especially the Cc
    > bit.


    Ok This works Fine....Thanks

    BTW, this isn't a public site, Its on a local Intranet site within the
    company...all workstations USE IE amd Outlook....So if works on IE and
    Outlook then thats all I need, and it does....All is well......

    I take it I could CC as many people as I wanted to with the ?cc= between
    each address if I so Choose, yes?

    (I only need to go to 2 people now, but in the future who knows....)

    Thanks Again
     
    gcc, Feb 25, 2005
    #13
  14. gcc

    gcc Guest


    > I take it I could CC as many people as I wanted to with the ?cc= between
    > each address if I so Choose, yes?


    Actually I Can't...Hmmmm

    Tried this tho.....

    mailto:?Cc=;
    &Subject=example

    And it did......lol
     
    gcc, Feb 25, 2005
    #14
  15. gcc

    Dan Guest

    gcc wrote:
    > > I take it I could CC as many people as I wanted to with the ?cc=

    between
    > > each address if I so Choose, yes?

    >
    > Actually I Can't...Hmmmm
    >
    > Tried this tho.....
    >
    > mailto:?Cc=;
    > &Subject=example
    >
    > And it did......lol


    By the official standards, you're supposed to separate addresses with
    commas, not semicolons, though I think MS Outhouse has the buggy
    behavior of working only with semicolons, not commas (or is it Outhouse
    Excess? I think one of them goes one way on this and the other one
    does the opposite).

    Also, if you're using such URLs in a href attribute in HTML, you're
    supposed to encode the ampersands as &amp;.

    If you include spaces in your subject line, be sure to encode them as
    %20.

    There are quite a few syntax issues that people usually get wrong when
    they try to do complex mailto URLs, which adds to the "Web purist"
    dislike of the whole concept.

    --
    Dan
     
    Dan, Feb 25, 2005
    #15
  16. gcc

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Previously in alt.html, Philip Ronan <> said:

    [mailto:]
    > BTW, the alt.html FAQ is talking complete b*ll*cks on this issue

    <snip>

    That is something that should be taken up with the FAQ maintainer (who I
    haven't actually seen around here for quite some time).

    > In fact both those RFCs are now obsolete. "mailto:" URLs are covered by
    > RFC2368, which is about 7 years old and pretty much universally supported.


    Though technically it is still only a _proposed_ standard. :)

    > Essentially there is *nothing* wrong with including a subject line in a
    > mailto link.


    I'm still of the opinion that the visitor has a much better idea of the
    subject of their email than I do. YMMV.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
     
    Mark Parnell, Feb 27, 2005
    #16
  17. gcc

    Philip Ronan Guest

    Mark Parnell wrote:

    > [RFC2368]
    >
    > Though technically it is still only a _proposed_ standard. :)


    Must admit I never entirely understood what what these RFC status things are
    supposed to mean. HTTP/1.1 is still a "draft standard".

    >> Essentially there is *nothing* wrong with including a subject line in a
    >> mailto link.

    >
    > I'm still of the opinion that the visitor has a much better idea of the
    > subject of their email than I do. YMMV.


    What if you want to include a user-ID or an MD5 hash or anything else that
    would be difficult or tedious to type in?

    --
    phil [dot] ronan @ virgin [dot] net
    http://vzone.virgin.net/phil.ronan/
     
    Philip Ronan, Feb 28, 2005
    #17
  18. gcc

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Previously in alt.html, Philip Ronan <> said:
    > Mark Parnell wrote:
    >
    >> I'm still of the opinion that the visitor has a much better idea of the
    >> subject of their email than I do. YMMV.

    >
    > What if you want to include a user-ID or an MD5 hash or anything else that
    > would be difficult or tedious to type in?


    I'd use a form. :)

    Seriously, though, if something like that was required, adding a subject
    to an email isn't reliable enough - assuming it works in the first
    place, the user could easily remove it from the subject line before
    sending the email.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
     
    Mark Parnell, Feb 28, 2005
    #18
  19. gcc

    Philip Ronan Guest

    Mark Parnell wrote:

    >> What if you want to include a user-ID or an MD5 hash or anything else that
    >> would be difficult or tedious to type in?

    >
    > I'd use a form. :)
    >
    > Seriously, though, if something like that was required, adding a subject
    > to an email isn't reliable enough - assuming it works in the first
    > place, the user could easily remove it from the subject line before
    > sending the email.


    Hmm, alright then. So would I. :-D

    --
    phil [dot] ronan @ virgin [dot] net
    http://vzone.virgin.net/phil.ronan/
     
    Philip Ronan, Feb 28, 2005
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?c2NrMTA=?=

    MailTo Link in GridView

    =?Utf-8?B?c2NrMTA=?=, Oct 7, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    10,228
    crjangel
    Oct 18, 2007
  2. mscir
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    661
    mscir
    Apr 26, 2006
  3. Neal
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    1,605
    Dave Patton
    Sep 23, 2004
  4. Philip Ronan
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    898
    Michael Winter
    Oct 3, 2004
  5. Thomas Gagne
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    326
    Robert Klemme
    Mar 15, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page