Determine user's default email client

R

Randy Webb

Andrew said:
Lee wrote:




Well it is for me.

I think I have it figured out now.

If a system is configured the way you think it should be, then the
mailto: works and all is fine. If the system is not configured that way
(for whatever reason), then its "odd". Got it.

Either way, mailto is *still* unreliable.
 
A

Andrey

You guys are nuts!
What is more reliable - mailto: or forms?
Ha! Yesturday i had a power outage and spend the whole evening without internet - so none of those
two(mailto: or forms) worked for me - and you talk about reliability!

The most reliable protocol - US Postal Service!
Every month i send my bills and they all reach a recipient without my OE/Firefox/Mozilla being
configured!

By the way, having OE or any other mail client configured is odd especially when you live with your
girlfriend and talk emails with some other girls :)))

Seriousely, i've always only used forms on my websites because - 1) spammers, 2) girlfriensd:)

Good luck all!
MuZZy
 
A

Andrew DeFaria

Randy said:
I think I have it figured out now.

If a system is configured the way you think it should be, then the
mailto: works and all is fine. If the system is not configured that
way (for whatever reason), then its "odd". Got it.

Yes then the system is indeed misconfigured.
Either way, mailto is *still* unreliable.

It's been reliable for me and millions of others for years. Again, sorry
you are having problems with it.
 
R

Randy Webb

Andrew said:
Yes then the system is indeed misconfigured.

No, it is configured exactly as it was intended to be. Thats not
misconfigured. It is configured properly, just not configured for your
broken mailto: to work.
It's been reliable for me and millions of others for years. Again, sorry
you are having problems with it.

I never said it wasn't reliable for you, I said it wasn't reliable for
an internet website.

Now, if your intentions are to keep rambling about how my system is
"misconfigured" or "odd", then please let me know so I can kill file you
so I don't have to read it anymore. Its unreliable, it always has been,
and it always will be. The fact that you prefer to keep your head stuck
in the sand and realize that is not for me to try to persuade you
differently.

I suppose your next argument is that you conducted a survey and to
produce the results you used a mailto: link to get the info?
 
A

Andrew DeFaria

Andrey said:
You guys are nuts!
What is more reliable - mailto: or forms?

Why mailto of course! :)

Have you forgotten that not all browsers support forms?
Ha! Yesturday i had a power outage and spend the whole evening without
internet - so none of those two(mailto: or forms) worked for me - and
you talk about reliability!

The most reliable protocol - US Postal Service!

Glad you've had luck with them. I've had problems - at times - but
admittedly they are fairly reliable. Then again I keep my own systems
fairly reliable too. Power outages? Sometimes. Moving and getting a new
ISP? Yeah that too. But then again a day or two of inaccessibility is
not a big deal. I mean the USPS doesn't deliver me anything on Sundays.
To me that's 1 day out a week or about an 86% uptime. (We could factor
in the fact that they are not open at night either if you want...) Even
my systems are in the 90%'s and I do way more with them then just send
messages.
Every month i send my bills and they all reach a recipient without my
OE/Firefox/Mozilla being configured!

Horse and buggy days I guess! I haven't written a check in 10 years! All
online bill payments.
By the way, having OE or any other mail client configured is odd
especially when you live with your girlfriend and talk emails with
some other girls :)))

If you actually let your girlfriend log in as you and have not secured
your system via at least of password then you deserve what you get!
There are many forms and ways to protect your email and other valuable
data from prying eyes. Even with web based email your girlfriend can
still log on as you and read your email.
Seriousely, i've always only used forms on my websites because - 1)
spammers, 2) girlfriensd:)

Perhaps your girlfriend is spamming you dude! ;-)
 
L

Lee

Andrew DeFaria said:
Well it is for me.

That's an excellent attitude, as long as you're the only
person who's going to be using the site.

I don't personally know anybody who uses Internet Explorer.
Does that make it ok for me to stop testing pages in it?
 
A

Andrew DeFaria

Randy said:
No, it is configured exactly as it was intended to be. Thats not
misconfigured. It is configured properly, just not configured for your
broken mailto: to work.

It configured in an odd way such as to lesson the amount of it's utility
- OK?
I never said it wasn't reliable for you, I said it wasn't reliable for
an internet website.

OK, it's been reliable for me (and many others) from countless websites
for years. Better?
Now, if your intentions are to keep rambling about how my system is
"misconfigured" or "odd",

I'm just telling you what is.
then please let me know so I can kill file you so I don't have to read
it anymore.

Go for it dude. You control your killfile not I.
Its unreliable, it always has been, and it always will be.

For you. Again, sorry you're having troubles.
The fact that you prefer to keep your head stuck in the sand and
realize that is not for me to try to persuade you differently.

My head is definitely not in the sand.
I suppose your next argument is that you conducted a survey and to
produce the results you used a mailto: link to get the info?

No survey's necessary here dude.
 
A

Andrew DeFaria

Lee said:
Andrew DeFaria said:


That's an excellent attitude, as long as you're the only person who's
going to be using the site.

It's odd for me and many others.
I don't personally know anybody who uses Internet Explorer. Does that
make it ok for me to stop testing pages in it?

I guess that depends on your audience.
 
P

Philip Ronan

Certainly it's relevant. All of the warnings about mailto in that
article apply to the "mailto:" protocol, regardless of whether it
appears in an ACTION attribute or an HREF attribute.

..../sigh

OK, let's take a look shall we?

These are the problems listed under "Mailto Drawbacks" in the page you
mentioned (apart from the obvious one that a "mailto" action is undefined
for FORM elements in HTML):
An error that there is no mail reader on the users machine.

If nothing happens when a I clicks on a mailto link, then I'm not likely to
go away thinking that my message has been sent, am I? (Obviously this would
be a major problem for a mailto form because I would be unaware of the
problem.)
An error because the browser cannot identify the users mail reader.

See above
No mail being sent, because the user cancels the mail request so as to avoid
revealing the user's email address.

So people can change their minds. So what?
The email disappears into nothingness because the action mailto: is further
malformed from a proper email address by the use of ?subject - which is an
invalid email address.

That's just plain wrong. Take a look at RFC 2368 when you're not too busy...
The email arrives to the website owner, only to appear blank, since either or
both of the browser and mail reader could not add the contents of the form to
the email.

Form? What form?

Like I said, the problems of combining mailto and forms are irrelevant to
this thread.

I mentioned in an earlier post that there may be some circumstances where
people might be unwilling or unable to use mailto links, which is why it is
also a good idea to provide a properly scripted web form as well. But
basically your argument seems to boil down to the fact that mailto doesn't
work for YOU, so NOBODY should use it.

Basically you're just spouting rubbish
 
M

Michael Winter

[snip]

[OT]
I hate those links. They only work in browsers that supports Microsoft's
MSDN sidebar.
[/OT]
<A HREF="mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Feedback&amp;
body=The%20InetSDK%20Site%20Is%20Superlative">
Click here to send feedback to the InetSDK.</A>

I can tell you, from testing, what that link does in AOL. Can you guess?

It also fails to work as intended in Opera as my browser and mail client.
The only thing that link does is set the To address. I suppose that might
be better than nothing, but it does show irrefutably that a form would be
more reliable for presetting content.

[snip]

Mike
 
R

Richard Cornford

Andrew said:
It configured in an odd way such as to lesson the amount#
of it's utility - OK?

If Randy's description of his e-mail system is accurate (and there is no
reason to believe otherwise) then configuring a mail client to work with
his browses would be futile and deliver no additional utility.
OK, it's been reliable for me (and many others) from
countless websites for years. Better?

Given the extensive list of what you are dismissing as "odd" and
"misconfigured" systems in which mailto: will certainly not work you are
defining reliable as; works for an unquantifiable subset of internet
users.

And blaming the users for whom it doesn't work for causing their own
problems. An attitude that is not dissimilar form blaming the user for
not using a default configuration of a recent version of IE on a Windows
desktop computer when they cannot access an IE only web site. The next
stage in that argument is usually to start fabricating and throwing
around statistics that imply that some "normal" majority represents a
sufficiently large percentage of the potential users that the residue
can be disregarded out of hand.

The client (the person who wants, and is probably paying for, a web
site) probably would prefer a definition of reliable that was more like;
works for 100% of the people 100% or the time. The combination of forms
and server-side scripting comes closer to that then any alternative (by
a long way). But if the client employs a developer who doesn't want to
do the work (or doesn't have the skills) they may be bamboozled into
accepting mailto:, and never be any the wiser because one of the
features of unreliable internet authoring is that you don't often get to
hear from the people for whom it is unreliable (especially when the
unreliability is in the communication/feed-back system). They go
elsewhere and do their business with the implementers of the reliable
alternatives.

My head is definitely not in the sand.

Some other not-so-well-lit location?
No survey's necessary here dude.

I am frequently remedied of the developer posing to this group who said
"I use pop-up windows extensively and I have never had any complaints
about them", who's feedback page was in a pop-up window.

I am also reminded of rather odd little (vanity published) book called
"Does the Earth Rotate?" (published 1919 [1]) by a (English) westcounty
fruitcake and religious zealot called William Edgell, in which he
attempts to argue that the world is flat and the heavens fixed above it.
Mr Edgell come to this (unexpected, even in 1919) conclusion through
prolonged observation of the poll star. Fixing a narrow rigid tube that
pointed at the poll star to a framework in his garden he sat, night
after night, staring down this tube, observing that the poll star
remained completely stationary in the heavens and making extensive
records of his observations.

Eventually concluding that the only reasonable explanation for the fixed
position of the poll star could only be a fixed, flat earth under a
fixed heaven, with the sun and moon being the only bodies to ever move.
Eventually publishing his book to challenge the scientific and education
orthodoxy of the time. And challenging anyone interested to set
themselves up a similar tube and observe the fixedness of the poll star
for themselves. (The sections of the book where he stubbornly
misinterprets every alternative explanation are quite amusing, but too
time consuming to go into).

The irony of this being that while Mr Edgell stared down his tube at the
one fixed(ish) point in the sky he was blinkered to the rest of the
universe, arching around the poll star at a steady 15 degrees an hour.

Richard.

[1] This book came to light in the library of the then (1919) Radstock
village school teacher, inherited by a friend of mine (his grandson). A
library that also included the 1919 first English edition of Einstein's
"Special and General Theory of Relatively".
 
R

Richard Cornford

Philip Ronan wrote:
That's just plain wrong. Take a look at RFC 2368 when you're
not too busy...
<snip>

It is not so much the RFC but reality that makes appending subject
(body, etc) to mailto links a problem. It is a problem for Lotus Notes
mail clients (version <= 5 at least, as I recall) where a mailto: link
alone will work (open the mail client and insert the recipient address)
but add a query string and when the client opens there is no address, or
anything else.

Still Lotus Notes is an "odd" mail client only used by businesses, and
how many web sites owners want to reliably communicate with businesses?

Richard.
 
P

Philip Ronan

It is not so much the RFC but reality that makes appending subject
(body, etc) to mailto links a problem. It is a problem for Lotus Notes
mail clients (version <= 5 at least, as I recall) where a mailto: link
alone will work (open the mail client and insert the recipient address)
but add a query string and when the client opens there is no address, or
anything else.

Still Lotus Notes is an "odd" mail client only used by businesses, and
how many web sites owners want to reliably communicate with businesses?

Lotus Notes?

Just because one lousy piece of software is broken doesn't mean we should
all avoid the features it can't handle. By your reasoning we shouldn't be
using CSS because it causes Netscape 4 to screw up. in any case, I never
said is was essential to include a subject line.

Using mailto: as the protocol of an HTML link is perfectly well documented
in all the relevant standards. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with it
at all. And it provides visitors with a much more user-friendly and flexible
way of contacting you, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

My website gets about 20000 hits from 500+ visitors every day. So far I've
never spotted any UAs identifying themselves as Lotus anything. Yes, it's a
business site. And yes I do care about communicating reliably with other
businesses. That's why I have an email link AND a feedback form as I've been
recommending all along.

I still don't understand why you have a problem with that.
 
L

Lee

Philip Ronan said:
.../sigh

OK, let's take a look shall we?

These are the problems listed under "Mailto Drawbacks" in the page you
mentioned (apart from the obvious one that a "mailto" action is undefined
for FORM elements in HTML):


If nothing happens when a I clicks on a mailto link, then I'm not likely to
go away thinking that my message has been sent, am I? (Obviously this would
be a major problem for a mailto form because I would be unaware of the
problem.)

So, you would be aware of the problem. Does that mean that there
isn't a problem?


See above

See above.

So people can change their minds. So what?

So the message doesn't get sent.

That's just plain wrong. Take a look at RFC 2368 when you're not too busy...

I don't get your point. Do you believe that the fact that an RFC
says that a problem doesn't exist means that it isn't common?


Form? What form?

Ok, you found one that doesn't apply.

Like I said, the problems of combining mailto and forms are irrelevant to
this thread.

I mentioned in an earlier post that there may be some circumstances where
people might be unwilling or unable to use mailto links, which is why it is
also a good idea to provide a properly scripted web form as well. But
basically your argument seems to boil down to the fact that mailto doesn't
work for YOU, so NOBODY should use it.

On the contrary. We all know that there are many people for whom
it doesn't work. You seem to be saying that it works for YOU so
it's ok to use for everybody.

Basically you're just spouting rubbish

That's an amazingly poor interpretation. You're not a professional
in any sense of the word, are you?
 
L

Lee

Andrew DeFaria said:
It's odd for me and many others.

Ok, now you're getting close to understanding the concept.

It seems odd to you and to many others. Take those people
away from the population and look at what's left -- many
other people for whom this situation is NOT odd. It's not
a majority of the population by any means, but it's a bigger
percentage than you should be willing to ignore.
 
R

Richard Cornford

Philip said:
Lotus Notes?

Just because one lousy piece of software is broken doesn't
mean we should all avoid the features it can't handle.

It is one piece of software used by the entire (at least
non-manual/production) staff of companies.
By your reasoning we shouldn't be using CSS
because it causes Netscape 4 to screw up.

My point was every specific; for each subject line provided for a user
of OE/Outlook a user of Lotus Notes is hindered from communicating.

People hide CSS from Netscape 4, if you could detect the e-mail client
similar possibilities would exist for mailto:, but you cannot.
in any case, I never said is
was essential to include a subject line.

You did question Lee's specific point about ?subject, referring to the
"standard" in a way that suggested it was harmless.

There is nothing inherently
"wrong" with it at all.

Beyond the fact that its use alone will prevent communication with some
users.
And it provides visitors with a much more
user-friendly and flexible way of contacting
you, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

For the ones with e-mail clients fully configured and conforming with
the RFC.
My website gets about 20000 hits from 500+ visitors
every day. So far I've never spotted any UAs identifying
themselves as Lotus anything.

Lotus Notes uses embedded IE as its user agent, so you are looking for
UA strings common to IE 5.0+ (I assume you see those form time to time).
Yes, it's a business site. And yes I do care about communicating
reliably with other businesses. That's why I have an email
link AND a feedback form as I've been recommending all along.

I still don't understand why you have a problem with that.

I have never said I did have a problem with that. But what is important
to understand is that it is the mail form that provides the reliable
communication. Once you start with the reliable it isn't so important if
there are alternatives that don't work so well (though it would be a
good idea if mailto: links where appropriately labelled so it was clear
why they didn't work when they don't).

The bad advice is advocating mailto: as the *only* communication method,
and particularly advocating it to individuals who are ignorant of the
issues (particularly clients who rely on web professionals to know, and
(impartially) advise on, the technology they propose using).

A mailto: link in addition to a form will get you spammed, but if the
site can cope with that it is not so important.

Richard.
 
A

Andrew DeFaria

Richard said:
If Randy's description of his e-mail system is accurate (and there is
no reason to believe otherwise) then configuring a mail client to work
with his browses would be futile and deliver no additional utility.

Given the extensive list of what you are dismissing as "odd" and
"misconfigured" systems in which mailto: will certainly not work you
are defining reliable as; works for an unquantifiable subset of
internet users.

Just like that unquantifiable subset of internet users who don't have an
email client! ;-)

It is reliable for it's intended purpose - which is to initiate a free
form email through the configured email client "helper" application, if
present.
And blaming the users for whom it doesn't work for causing their own
problems. An attitude that is not dissimilar form blaming the user for
not using a default configuration of a recent version of IE on a
Windows desktop computer when they cannot access an IE only web site.

Not at all.
The next stage in that argument is usually to start fabricating and
throwing around statistics that imply that some "normal" majority
represents a sufficiently large percentage of the potential users that
the residue can be disregarded out of hand.

If you don't have an email client configured to send email then to
expect to be able to send email is expecting too much. Yes some
(actually more and more) web sites provide a sub par way of getting
around this problem by doing the email itself. I think that's a bad way
to handle it.
The client (the person who wants, and is probably paying for, a web
site) probably would prefer a definition of reliable that was more
like; works for 100% of the people 100% or the time.

You've never had a web based email system fail to deliver?!?
Some other not-so-well-lit location?

Nope. I just have a difference in opinion - something that *you* seem to
have a problem with.
 
P

Philip Ronan

Philip Ronan said:

So, you would be aware of the problem. Does that mean that there
isn't a problem?

1. User clicks mailto link.
2. No email client appears
3. User fills in form instead.
4. end of problem
So the message doesn't get sent.

What if I decide not to click your "submit" button?
I don't get your point. Do you believe that the fact that an RFC
says that a problem doesn't exist means that it isn't common?

The RFC doesn't have anything to say about the existence of problems. It
says how things are SUPPOSED to operate. If I was using a crippled piece of
software that couldn't understand a mailto link, you know what I'd do?

That's right, I'd fill in the form instead!!
Ok, you found one that doesn't apply.

Hurrah, at least we agree on something!
That's an amazingly poor interpretation. You're not a professional
in any sense of the word, are you?

Got any loose change, mister?
 
A

Andrew DeFaria

Richard said:
It is one piece of software used by the entire (at least
non-manual/production) staff of companies.

It is a piece of crappy software that is usually forced down the throats
of unsuspecting and otherwise neophyte users who either know no better
or quickly learn that it's functionality is sub par and if they are
smart, use another application!
My point was every specific; for each subject line provided for a user
of OE/Outlook a user of Lotus Notes is hindered from communicating.

So Notes is broken (what a surprise!). Shall we code for the lowest
common denominator? Does your web site handle ASCII browsers running on
a hand held in Ethiopia?!?
People hide CSS from Netscape 4, if you could detect the e-mail client
similar possibilities would exist for mailto:, but you cannot.

Some web sites hide CSS from Netscape 4. Some do not. It's not practical
to hide standards from non standard compliant software. That's why there
are standards. If we always coded for ever odd situation to cover broken
functionality of the various applications then we might as well just do
away with standards altogether.
Beyond the fact that its use alone will prevent communication with
some users.

Just about anything you use may fail with some esoteric
browser/application combo or configuration. What's a coder to do? Rely
on standards! But when you rely on standards some people will still
complain! Argh!
For the ones with e-mail clients fully configured and conforming with
the RFC.

Yes, as defined. Where's the problem? If people wish to use non
conforming applications and choose to not configure things then they
should expect it not to work.
I have never said I did have a problem with that. But what is
important to understand is that it is the mail form that provides the
reliable communication.

Again, what mail *form*? I am not speaking of forms who's purpose is to
gather specific and limited information. I'm speaking of a free form
email message.
 
D

Dr John Stockton

JRS: In article <[email protected]>, dated Thu, 7
Oct 2004 13:57:19, seen in Richard Cornford
Mr Edgell come to this (unexpected, even in 1919) conclusion through
prolonged observation of the poll star. Fixing a narrow rigid tube that
pointed at the poll star to a framework in his garden he sat, night
after night, staring down this tube, observing that the poll star
remained completely stationary in the heavens and making extensive
records of his observations.

Polaris, the pole star, is a good half a degree away from the pole
itself; its circular motion would be observable with the simplest of
equipment, such as described.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,479
Members
44,899
Latest member
RodneyMcAu

Latest Threads

Top