Form Mailer

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Joshua St. John, Jul 13, 2003.

  1. I am looking for cgi access so I can create my own form with whatever fields
    I want and be able to use someones cgi access to send it. Please reply to
    Thanks

    Joshua

    --
    ____________________________________

    Maybe God wants us to meet a few wrong
    people before meeting the right one, so that
    when we finally meet the person, we know
    how grateful to be.
     
    Joshua St. John, Jul 13, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Why not use response-o-matic.com ??? Its free and very easy to use...been
    around for years.

    --Tina
    --
    http://www.AffordableHOST.com - hosting since 1997
    Cpanel, Multi-Acct., Resellers, Server Pkgs., $5.95 and up.
    Newsgroup 20% Discount Code/Coupon: newsgroup


    "Joshua St. John" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I am looking for cgi access so I can create my own form with whatever

    fields
    > I want and be able to use someones cgi access to send it. Please reply to
    > Thanks
    >
    > Joshua
    >
    > --
    > ____________________________________
    >
    > Maybe God wants us to meet a few wrong
    > people before meeting the right one, so that
    > when we finally meet the person, we know
    > how grateful to be.
    >
    >
     
    Tina - AffordableHOST.com, Jul 13, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joshua St. John wrote:

    > I am looking for cgi access so I can create my own form with whatever
    > fields
    > I want and be able to use someones cgi access to send it. Please reply to
    > Thanks
    >
    > Joshua
    >


    http://www.scriptarchive.com/readme/formmail.html
    Is a perl script, rename it to cgi, adjust the user/group rights, run it.

    All there.

    /Andreas

    --
    Registeret Linux user #292411
     
    Andreas Paasch, Jul 13, 2003
    #3
  4. Joshua St. John

    Isofarro Guest

    Andreas Paasch wrote:

    > Joshua St. John wrote:
    >
    >> I am looking for cgi access so I can create my own form with whatever
    >> fields

    >
    > http://www.scriptarchive.com/readme/formmail.html


    Stay well away from Matt's Script Archive.
    http://www.html-faq.com/cgi/?secureformmail

    use the nms scripts instead:
    http://nms-cgi.sourceforge.net/


    --
    Iso.
    FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
    Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
    Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/
     
    Isofarro, Jul 13, 2003
    #4
  5. Isofarro wrote:

    > Andreas Paasch wrote:
    >
    >> Joshua St. John wrote:
    >>
    >>> I am looking for cgi access so I can create my own form with whatever
    >>> fields

    >>
    >> http://www.scriptarchive.com/readme/formmail.html

    >
    > Stay well away from Matt's Script Archive.
    > http://www.html-faq.com/cgi/?secureformmail
    >
    > use the nms scripts instead:
    > http://nms-cgi.sourceforge.net/
    >
    >


    I knew that MSA scripts have had their flaws, but thought they were fixed by
    now.
    Read it, and learned something new. Present MSA bookmark dropped, info taken
    ad notum.

    Script will be change here.

    Thanks !

    /Andreas

    --
    Registeret Linux user #292411
     
    Andreas Paasch, Jul 13, 2003
    #5
  6. Joshua St. John

    Peter Guest

    What are you trying to send and where? You can get a form to submit the
    fields to you in an email no problem. You can even specify the layout of the
    body text using javascript. Depends on what you are trying to achieve.

    Peter.

    "Joshua St. John" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I am looking for cgi access so I can create my own form with whatever

    fields
    > I want and be able to use someones cgi access to send it. Please reply to
    > Thanks
    >
    > Joshua
    >
    > --
    > ____________________________________
    >
    > Maybe God wants us to meet a few wrong
    > people before meeting the right one, so that
    > when we finally meet the person, we know
    > how grateful to be.
    >
    >
     
    Peter, Jul 17, 2003
    #6
  7. "Peter" <> wrote in message news:<JZnRa.28753$>...
    > "Joshua St. John" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I am looking for cgi access so I can create my own form with whatever

    > fields
    > > I want and be able to use someones cgi access to send it. Please reply to
    > > Thanks
    > >

    > What are you trying to send and where?


    What difference does that make? An email form is an email form,
    unless you use action="mailto:..." (then it becomes a lottery).

    > You can get a form to submit the
    > fields to you in an email no problem. You can even specify the layout of the
    > body text using javascript. Depends on what you are trying to achieve.


    Why would you use JavaScript to "specify the layout of the body text"?

    --
    Hywel
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Jul 17, 2003
    #7
  8. Joshua St. John

    Peter Guest

    Here's an example of what I am talking about. If you try this out, you will
    find that the spaces have been altered to "+" signs. This is because when
    you use the get method in the form, it encodes the form elements into the
    url of the action. You could change the action to post and then change the
    body text accordingly using javascript. This method gives a great deal of
    control over the email that is being sent. I have made the to address
    alterable in the form, but you could fix that to any address you like in the
    action of the form and then remove the first table row. You will get a
    security message shown stating you are about to submit an email, but I think
    this is quite a nice way to send mail from a web page without having to
    resort to cgi. Alternatively, you could check out Tripod or Angelfire as
    they offer Perl cgi mailing scripts for free, just make your web page link
    into their cgi script in the action and alter your form fields in accordance
    with their instructions.

    Hope that helps you understand what I was suggesting earlier.


    Peter.

    <!-- Put this in the head section of your html -->
    <script type="text/javascript">
    function submitForm() {
    docment.myForm.submit();
    }

    function resetForm() {
    document.myForm.reset();
    }
    </script>

    <!-- Put this in the body section of your html -->
    <form name="myForm" id="myForm" action="" method="get">
    <table>
    <tr>
    <td>To</td>
    <td><input type="text" name="to" value=""></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
    <td>CC</td>
    <td><input type="text" name="cc" value=""></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
    <td>BCC</td>
    <td><input type="text" name="bcc" value=""></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
    <td>Subject</td>
    <td><input type="text" name="subject" value=""></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
    <td>Body</td>
    <td><input type="text" name="body" value=""></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
    <td align="left"><input type="button" value="Clear" name="cmdReset"
    onClick="resetForm();"></td>
    <td align="right"><input type="button" value="Send" name="cmdSubmit"
    onClick="submitForm();"></td>
    </tr>
    </table>
    </form>


    "Hywel Jenkins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Peter" <> wrote in message

    news:<JZnRa.28753$>...
    > > "Joshua St. John" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > I am looking for cgi access so I can create my own form with whatever

    > > fields
    > > > I want and be able to use someones cgi access to send it. Please

    reply to
    > > > Thanks
    > > >

    > > What are you trying to send and where?

    >
    > What difference does that make? An email form is an email form,
    > unless you use action="mailto:..." (then it becomes a lottery).
    >
    > > You can get a form to submit the
    > > fields to you in an email no problem. You can even specify the layout of

    the
    > > body text using javascript. Depends on what you are trying to achieve.

    >
    > Why would you use JavaScript to "specify the layout of the body text"?
    >
    > --
    > Hywel
     
    Peter, Jul 19, 2003
    #8
  9. In article <kscSa.536$>,
    says...
    > "Hywel Jenkins" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > "Peter" <> wrote in message

    > news:<JZnRa.28753$>...
    > > > "Joshua St. John" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > > > I am looking for cgi access so I can create my own form with whatever
    > > > fields
    > > > > I want and be able to use someones cgi access to send it. Please

    > reply to
    > > > > Thanks
    > > > >
    > > > What are you trying to send and where?

    > >
    > > What difference does that make? An email form is an email form,
    > > unless you use action="mailto:..." (then it becomes a lottery).
    > >
    > > > You can get a form to submit the
    > > > fields to you in an email no problem. You can even specify the layout of

    > the
    > > > body text using javascript. Depends on what you are trying to achieve.

    > >
    > > Why would you use JavaScript to "specify the layout of the body text"?
    > >

    > Here's an example of what I am talking about. If you try this out, you will
    > find that the spaces have been altered to "+" signs. This is because when
    > you use the get method in the form, it encodes the form elements into the
    > url of the action. You could change the action to post and then change the
    > body text accordingly using javascript. This method gives a great deal of
    > control over the email that is being sent. I have made the to address
    > alterable in the form, but you could fix that to any address you like in the
    > action of the form and then remove the first table row. You will get a
    > security message shown stating you are about to submit an email, but I think
    > this is quite a nice way to send mail from a web page without having to
    > resort to cgi. Alternatively, you could check out Tripod or Angelfire as
    > they offer Perl cgi mailing scripts for free, just make your web page link
    > into their cgi script in the action and alter your form fields in accordance
    > with their instructions.
    >
    > Hope that helps you understand what I was suggesting earlier.
    >

    The code you've given has no effect on the layout of the email
    whatsoever. It does nothing to format the data in any. In fact, you
    just done a daft thing with buttons that already existing HTML (<input
    type="submit"> and <input type="reset">).

    You are so far off the mark you've almost shot yourself in the arse.

    --
    Hywel I do not each quiche
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/mfaq.php
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Jul 21, 2003
    #9
  10. Joshua St. John

    ManoDestra Guest

    I agree. The thing that annoyed me was that the guy wasn't even the guy who
    asked the question. It pains me when people question you and act all smart
    when they don't know what they're talking about. What goes around, comes
    around, I suppose.

    Probably just pissed off for being called Hywel. Get some web experience
    before you open your mouth again Hywel. Try listening to people once in a
    while and you might learn something.

    Peter.
    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:18:59 +0100, "ManoDestra"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >I don't really see why you have to be insulting. I was merely trying

    to be
    > >helpful by showing you that you can do exactly what you wanted to do

    with
    > >html and javascript without having to use any cgi. If you want to

    validate
    > >the fields, that are being passed, then fine. Write the javascript to
    > >validate the fields before you submit the form.
    > >
    > >I don't understand why you feel you need to be offensive. I was after

    all
    > >only trying to help. If I'm bothering you then I won't bother you any
    > >further.
    > >
    > >Have a nice day...
    > >Peter.

    > Dear Peter,
    >
    > There is a broadly accepted belief in this newsgroup that merely by the
    > action of asking for help, or volunteering alternative information, you

    are
    > giving permission to the greybeards to assault you in anyway they choose.
    > When I say "broadly accepted " I mean it is broadly accepted by the
    > greybeards - no-one else thinks it appropriate.
    >
    > You may get a follow-up from any of the regulars after the fashion: "You
    > don't *have* to post here, and we don't get paid to do this (and so on)

    and
    > thus we don't *have* to answer you, so if we DO answer you, you ought to
    > feel properly grateful that you got any response at all.... Search the
    > web.... Try buying a book.... Visit the technical section of your local
    > library, etc." They also have the option of smug silence - "Wotta

    peasant,
    > daring to question my attitude after I've been good enough to increase his
    > miserable stock of knowledge..." sort'v thing.
    >
    > Stay subscribed to the group for any period of time and you may begin to
    > sense that there is almost a competition to see how rude ("abrupt",

    rather)
    > some people can be in their replies to the less skilled who seek help. I
    > should imagine that there are Ph.D dissertations by the bucketful being
    > written on the psychology of those whose displays seem to indicate they
    > almost relish reading innocent queries that they may reply forcefully.

    I'm
    > sure the word "territorial" will feature strongly in such papers.
    >
    > This newsgroup is not unique in offering such behaviour - Usenet is, after
    > all, shall we say "robust"? - but it can be one of the worst at times,
    > considering the placid spirit enquirers usually display, but that, of
    > course, is of little import to people like you who are puzzled why a

    fairly
    > quiet summing of an alternative procedure should generate such heat in the
    > reply.
    >
    > I don't know why the person who replied to you in that style did so; over
    > the months of reading this group's posts his (and others') replies, when
    > stripped of the invective, are usually spot-on and I have been helped by
    > that. I have also seen some of them go to great lengths to carry the
    > argument through to a full solution to the benefit of their correspondent.
    >
    > My own experience was of some four replies to my query; two were

    dismissive
    > "RTFM" types, one was of limited help but the fourth pointed the way in a
    > simple style symptomatic of the best spirit of usenet.
    >
    > Alas, they rarely get a response of "Thanx, that worked great!" Also, I
    > agree that it must be dispiriting at times to be called upon to face the
    > same range of questions over and over again when many of these could have
    > been answered by a little simple self-help search in other arenas. No

    doubt
    > this can colour an overall attitude but, as the man said "It's nice to be
    > nice" and it costs nothing - and I cannot imagine they'd be so rude were

    you
    > in the same room as you.
    >
    > They so often say - "we don't *have* to do this" etc - all as above. So

    if
    > they choose to do it, why do they sometimes act as they do? I don't know;
    > perhaps they don't either. It's a shame, unfortunate.
    >
    > Yooors,
    >
    > Iain.
    > This post did not necessarily reflect my opinions. So there.
    >
    > Sent from within Forte's Agent.
    > Pull the pins out to reply direct.
     
    ManoDestra, Jul 22, 2003
    #10
  11. In article <e1fTa.180$>,
    says...
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:18:59 +0100, "ManoDestra"
    > > <> wrote:
    > > They so often say - "we don't *have* to do this" etc - all as above. So

    > if
    > > they choose to do it, why do they sometimes act as they do? I don't know;
    > > perhaps they don't either. It's a shame, unfortunate.
    > >

    > I agree. The thing that annoyed me was that the guy wasn't even the guy who
    > asked the question. It pains me when people question you and act all smart
    > when they don't know what they're talking about. What goes around, comes
    > around, I suppose.


    Judging by the fact that your code sample did nothing of what you said
    (manipulating email content), clearly you have no idea, either. Look at
    the code you posted again: all it does is emulate the "reset" and
    "submit" input types.

    >
    > Probably just pissed off for being called Hywel.


    Excellent come back. Very impressive. Particularly as you have no idea
    how to reply to posts.

    > Get some web experience before you open your mouth again Hywel.


    Now you've really got me laughing. I've been doing this for 7 years and
    have a client list that includes three companies that turnover in excess
    of £10,000,000 pa, as well as several other smaller companies (turnover
    of circa £200,000 pa). In 1998 I developed a B2B ecommerce application
    that handled in excess of £15,000,000 worth of transactions - that got
    me an award from The Times for "Innovation in ECommerce".

    If you really want a pissing contest to see who knows more about web
    development, please feel free to post another one of your JavaScript
    snippets.

    --
    Hywel I do not each quiche
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/mfaq.php
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Jul 22, 2003
    #11
  12. In article <CCkTa.3792$>,
    says...
    > My snippet of code as you call it didn't do much because it was only
    > illustrating a framework of how to do email without resorting to cgi.
    >
    > All you need are various fields named to, cc, bcc, subject and body. Form
    > action="mailto:" method="get". Submit the form and it will send an email.


    "mailto" as a form action doesn't work, regardless of what the RF says.
    Did you read Iso's link? Here it is again:
    http://www.isolani.co.uk/articles/mailto.html

    > Now can we please move on as I have better things to do with my time than
    > teach arrogant people like yourself the basics of HTTP/HTML.


    Ever thought of a career in comedy? You certainly make me laugh. Your
    "solution" had nothing to do with either HTTP or HTML. It was another
    example of a hack employed by amateurs and newbies.

    --
    Hywel I do not each quiche
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/
    http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/mfaq.php
     
    Hywel Jenkins, Jul 23, 2003
    #12
  13. Joshua St. John

    Art Sackett Guest

    In alt.html ManoDestra <> wrote:

    > My snippet of code as you call it didn't do much because it was only
    > illustrating a framework of how to do email without resorting to cgi.


    And as such, it was illustrating a method that fails, quite often,
    without giving notice to either the user or the intended recipient.
    This leaves the user to assume that the intended recipient has chosen
    to ignore his contact. This is clearly an unacceptable outcome.

    > Just because you have been in business for seven years does not necessarily
    > make a professional software engineer/web designer.


    However, I am a professional software engineer and web designer, and
    like Hywel, I think you're full of shit. You do not understand the
    limitations of the "solution" you presented, and defend it as though it
    is a perfectly suitable alternative to a server-side application. It is
    not. Period.

    > Neither does it give you
    > the right to be self-righteous and downright offensive to someone who was
    > helping someone else in the first place.


    It gives me that right, dipshit.

    > I trust you treat your customers in
    > a better fashion than you treat people who are trying to be helpful.


    People who are so inexperienced that they are not even aware of the
    fact that they're misleading others have no business trying to be
    helpful. They ought to shut up and learn something first.

    > ... my code which is perfectly
    > legit code and WORKS.


    Works sometimes, fails without warning other times.

    I hate it when people know far more than they ever bothered to learn.

    > It is basic form handling via an HTTP protocol we're
    > talking here. Surely you know about that?


    No, that's not what it is.

    > Now can we please move on as I have better things to do with my time than
    > teach arrogant people like yourself the basics of HTTP/HTML.


    Do you have the time to *learn* HTTP and HTML?

    --
    Art Sackett,
    Patron Saint of Drunken Fornication
     
    Art Sackett, Jul 23, 2003
    #13
  14. Joshua St. John

    Isofarro Guest

    ManoDestra wrote:

    > Did I at any point claim that this was the best way to send email from a
    > web page? I did not. It has it's limitations, certainly. Particularly when
    > it comes to security, but this does not detract from the fact that you can
    > send an email from a web page without the need for any other server side
    > technology.


    No you can't. Its too unreliable for use on the Web.

    See http://www.isolani.co.uk/articles/mailto.html

    --
    Iso.
    FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
    Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
    Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/
     
    Isofarro, Jul 23, 2003
    #14
  15. Joshua St. John

    Isofarro Guest

    ManoDestra wrote:

    > All you need are various fields named to, cc, bcc, subject and body. Form
    > action="mailto:"


    Invalid HTML. Any use of a URL other than an HTTP URL is undefined and its
    repercussions random.


    > But then so was your attack on my
    > code which is perfectly legit code and WORKS.


    Invalid HTML is not "legit code" (sic). And it really doesn't work reliably
    at all. There is absolutely no notification when it fails, and that makes
    it impossible for you to determine that it actually does work. Or does
    everyone who uses your broken form only use your computer to do so?

    > If you take
    > the time to listen to what is being said before slamming it into the
    > ground because it's not the way you do it, you may learn something of use.


    Pot. Kettle. Black.



    --
    Iso.
    FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
    Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
    Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/
     
    Isofarro, Jul 23, 2003
    #15
  16. Joshua St. John

    ManoDestra Guest

    There is no single solution for a problem when it comes to software
    engineering. It depends on what your customers want, what they can afford,
    the limitations of what hardware already exists in an organisation at any
    one time, etc. I don't know why so many people can shit on something so
    simple. Okay, it's not server side. That does not render my suggestion
    useless. And it DOES work. I have never sent an email from an HTML form
    client side that didn't work. And if it didn't work, it was because of the
    network, or email client itself which shows as obvious because the email
    either doesn't send or comes back with an error email stating that it could
    not be sent. Not because of the HTML or anything related to how it was
    coded.

    I have been a software engineer for many years now and I take great
    exception at being called a "newbie" (not that there's anything wrong with
    being a "newbie", we all have to start somewhere after all). If you don't
    like my solution, why not say "Okay, that's one way of doing it, but here's
    another solution which is even better". It's called respect for other
    people's knowledge and experience. Basic manners. I would say it is a
    prerequisite for anyone who wishes to be termed PROFESSIONAL. Listen to
    people, attack a problem from different angles. Find the best solution. You
    might never solve a problem using a certain technique, but it doesn't hurt
    to take some time to learn how the technique works and in what situations
    that it COULD be implemented.

    I shall not be posting any further responses in this newsgroup. I only
    subscribed in order to deepen my own understanding, through listening to
    other people's solutions and by helping others in turn.

    I wish you all the very best of luck in your careers. With the attitudes I
    have witnessed on this newsgroup, you will need it.

    Best wishes
    Peter.

    P.S. I did read the article by the way. Very interesting, but not
    conclusive. Still doesn't eradicate the possibility of sending an email
    using the mailto protocol via a web page. Bye!

    "ManoDestra" <> wrote in message
    news:AHkTa.3820$...
    > Isofarro,
    >
    > Did I at any point claim that this was the best way to send email from a

    web
    > page? I did not. It has it's limitations, certainly. Particularly when it
    > comes to security, but this does not detract from the fact that you can

    send
    > an email from a web page without the need for any other server side
    > technology. I was simply offering an alternative solution to a simple
    > problem. When did this become a crime?
    >
    > Peter.
    >
    > "Isofarro" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > ManoDestra wrote:
    > >
    > > > I don't really see why you have to be insulting. I was merely trying

    to
    > be
    > > > helpful by showing you that you can do exactly what you wanted to do

    > with
    > > > html and javascript without having to use any cgi.

    > >
    > > And you failed. See:
    > > http://www.isolani.co.uk/articles/mailto.html
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Iso.
    > > FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
    > > Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
    > > Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/

    >
    >
     
    ManoDestra, Jul 24, 2003
    #16
  17. Joshua St. John

    Kingdom Guest

    (Art Sackett) wrote in
    news::

    > In alt.html ManoDestra <> wrote:
    >
    > One last time...
    >
    >> I don't know why so many people can shit on something so
    >> simple.

    >
    > So many people can "shit on something so simple" because it's wrong.
    >
    >> Okay, it's not server side. That does not render my suggestion
    >> useless. And it DOES work.

    >
    > On the internet we cannot assume anything about the client's
    > abilities, but we *can* control the end of the transaction we're on,
    > the server side. It's a simple enough concept, I assume that as an
    > experienced software engineer you can grasp it.
    >
    > mailto: only works sometimes. Other times, it fails. Surely, as an
    > experienced software engineer, you first researched the subject before
    > you opened your yap and started yammering away about it.
    >
    > Now, let's just forget all of the technical reasons why mailto: is not
    > suitable for use outside of a rigidly controlled intranet, and just
    > attack your faulty logic:
    >
    >> I have never sent an email from an HTML form
    >> client side that didn't work. And if it didn't work {...}

    >
    > You've never seen this thing fail, but when you have seen it fail...
    > you're talking out both sides of your ass! How can anyone trust a man
    > who'll contradict himself on either side of a single punctuation mark?
    >
    >> I have been a software engineer for many years now and I take great
    >> exception at being called a "newbie" (not that there's anything wrong
    >> with being a "newbie", we all have to start somewhere after all).

    >
    > You are a newbie, fool. You're arguing with people who have many years
    > of experience in this and related fields, about a thing that we all
    > know perfectly well. A seasoned professional would know that he's
    > stepped out of his realm after receiving our response -- a newbie
    > would behave as you are.
    >
    >> If you don't
    >> like my solution, why not say "Okay, that's one way of doing it, but
    >> here's another solution which is even better".

    >
    > Because we're not your underqualified night school instructors. You're
    > misleading another and are either too damned dumb to know it, or are
    > too proud to admit it. In either case, you are doing a disservice to
    > the community. It would be a further disservice to the community were
    > we all to say "that's one way of doing it". You deserve to be blasted,
    > and the other newbies deserve to see it so they'll know not to accept
    > your advice at face value.
    >
    >> It's called respect for other
    >> people's knowledge and experience. Basic manners. I would say it is a
    >> prerequisite for anyone who wishes to be termed PROFESSIONAL.

    >
    > Yeah, but you're full of crap anyway so no one cares how you define
    > professional, pseudopneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, or
    > rhinoceros.
    >
    >> You
    >> might never solve a problem using a certain technique, but it doesn't
    >> hurt to take some time to learn how the technique works and in what
    >> situations that it COULD be implemented.

    >
    > Heard that from one of your underqualified night school instructors,
    > didja?
    >
    >> I shall not be posting any further responses in this newsgroup.

    >
    > That's probably a wise choice, at least in the short term.
    >
    >> I only
    >> subscribed in order to deepen my own understanding, through listening
    >> to other people's solutions and by helping others in turn.

    >
    > Listening, and even discussing, are perfectly acceptable things to do
    > here. Misleading people is not. First learn, then teach -- that's how
    > it works.
    >
    > There are a lot of posers in the world, and a disproportionate number
    > of them sit in front of computers. I feel no compulsion to be nice to
    > them. I've spent too many years of my life cleaning up their messes.
    >


    The impudent young pup

    Try to help and getting it wrong!

    Drag him out and string him up.

    --
    There are no problems only situations

    =========================================================================
    Walrus Home alt.binaries.pictures.walpaper <=vote here every weekend.
    weekly entries posted on
    http://web.newsguy.com/evilsideshowbob/entries.html
    FAQ found at http://members.rogers.com/heretic54/
    (The most up to date version is posted in alt.binaries.pictures.walpaper
    on Mondays and Thursdays. PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING)
    Walrus websites: http://web.newsguy.com/evilsideshowbob/
    For Contest Archives & Artists http://www.weeklywalrus.com
    =========================================================================
     
    Kingdom, Jul 24, 2003
    #17
  18. Joshua St. John

    ManoDestra Guest

    I love getting my words twisted by amateurs...

    I did not contradict myself, if you read the response right. I said that it
    never failed from an HTML form, the part that failed was after it got to
    your email client and there was a problem with the email address or network
    traffic, but never the form itself. The HTML part was sound. It has it's
    applications in the real world, whether you like it or not.

    I wasn't trying to advocate that sending email from a web page using the
    mailto protocol was the all singing all dancing solution to sending email
    via a browser. I've worked with client/server technology for years. I know
    the limitations of the mailto: protocol. But it can still be useful for some
    people who haven't worked with these technologies for as long as we have to
    put a bit of HTML on a web page that sends an email back to the webmaster.
    That gives "newbies" (not my term, yours) a great sense of accomplishment.
    The desire to learn more. The desire to learn better ways of doing things.
    Hey, just like you guys before you became so jaded, cynical and offensive to
    the core.

    To slag someone to death for suggesting a simpler solution than server-side
    technologies is exceedingly distasteful and utterly unprofessional. There's
    never one solution to anything. Any software engineer worth his salt should
    know this and be able to weigh up the pros and cons of each solution.

    If someone comes to me looking for a simple way to send feedback emails back
    from his website, but his web server doesn't support cgi, what am I going to
    say to him. Trash your current hosting and go somewhere else. Then what if
    he can't afford that. I'm not going to be the one to say, never ever use the
    mailto protocol, because you can. Fires up the client's email client, they
    type in some text, click send and away goes the email to the webmaster as if
    by magic. You cannot possibly shit on that. It is a legitimate and sensible
    solution for this particular customer.

    Let me tell you, you are not going to get far with the atrocious attitudes
    you have displayed here. What goes around, comes around. You should be
    ashamed of yourselves, acting like teenagers. I certainly shall not be
    wasting any more of my time trying to teach you guys the merits of an open
    minded attitude.

    Incidentally, have you guys noticed that this newsgroup is called
    alt.html.writers. Does that mean Perl? ASP? JSP? No. I didn't think so. It's
    about writing HTML which is what I have been talking about all along. Here
    endeth the lesson.

    Peter.

    "Kingdom" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns93C2C44D556A2kingdomofwizdom@194.117.133.134...
    > (Art Sackett) wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > In alt.html ManoDestra <> wrote:
    > >
    > > One last time...
    > >
    > >> I don't know why so many people can shit on something so
    > >> simple.

    > >
    > > So many people can "shit on something so simple" because it's wrong.
    > >
    > >> Okay, it's not server side. That does not render my suggestion
    > >> useless. And it DOES work.

    > >
    > > On the internet we cannot assume anything about the client's
    > > abilities, but we *can* control the end of the transaction we're on,
    > > the server side. It's a simple enough concept, I assume that as an
    > > experienced software engineer you can grasp it.
    > >
    > > mailto: only works sometimes. Other times, it fails. Surely, as an
    > > experienced software engineer, you first researched the subject before
    > > you opened your yap and started yammering away about it.
    > >
    > > Now, let's just forget all of the technical reasons why mailto: is not
    > > suitable for use outside of a rigidly controlled intranet, and just
    > > attack your faulty logic:
    > >
    > >> I have never sent an email from an HTML form
    > >> client side that didn't work. And if it didn't work {...}

    > >
    > > You've never seen this thing fail, but when you have seen it fail...
    > > you're talking out both sides of your ass! How can anyone trust a man
    > > who'll contradict himself on either side of a single punctuation mark?
    > >
    > >> I have been a software engineer for many years now and I take great
    > >> exception at being called a "newbie" (not that there's anything wrong
    > >> with being a "newbie", we all have to start somewhere after all).

    > >
    > > You are a newbie, fool. You're arguing with people who have many years
    > > of experience in this and related fields, about a thing that we all
    > > know perfectly well. A seasoned professional would know that he's
    > > stepped out of his realm after receiving our response -- a newbie
    > > would behave as you are.
    > >
    > >> If you don't
    > >> like my solution, why not say "Okay, that's one way of doing it, but
    > >> here's another solution which is even better".

    > >
    > > Because we're not your underqualified night school instructors. You're
    > > misleading another and are either too damned dumb to know it, or are
    > > too proud to admit it. In either case, you are doing a disservice to
    > > the community. It would be a further disservice to the community were
    > > we all to say "that's one way of doing it". You deserve to be blasted,
    > > and the other newbies deserve to see it so they'll know not to accept
    > > your advice at face value.
    > >
    > >> It's called respect for other
    > >> people's knowledge and experience. Basic manners. I would say it is a
    > >> prerequisite for anyone who wishes to be termed PROFESSIONAL.

    > >
    > > Yeah, but you're full of crap anyway so no one cares how you define
    > > professional, pseudopneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, or
    > > rhinoceros.
    > >
    > >> You
    > >> might never solve a problem using a certain technique, but it doesn't
    > >> hurt to take some time to learn how the technique works and in what
    > >> situations that it COULD be implemented.

    > >
    > > Heard that from one of your underqualified night school instructors,
    > > didja?
    > >
    > >> I shall not be posting any further responses in this newsgroup.

    > >
    > > That's probably a wise choice, at least in the short term.
    > >
    > >> I only
    > >> subscribed in order to deepen my own understanding, through listening
    > >> to other people's solutions and by helping others in turn.

    > >
    > > Listening, and even discussing, are perfectly acceptable things to do
    > > here. Misleading people is not. First learn, then teach -- that's how
    > > it works.
    > >
    > > There are a lot of posers in the world, and a disproportionate number
    > > of them sit in front of computers. I feel no compulsion to be nice to
    > > them. I've spent too many years of my life cleaning up their messes.
    > >

    >
    > The impudent young pup
    >
    > Try to help and getting it wrong!
    >
    > Drag him out and string him up.
    >
    > --
    > There are no problems only situations
    >
    > =========================================================================
    > Walrus Home alt.binaries.pictures.walpaper <=vote here every weekend.
    > weekly entries posted on
    > http://web.newsguy.com/evilsideshowbob/entries.html
    > FAQ found at http://members.rogers.com/heretic54/
    > (The most up to date version is posted in alt.binaries.pictures.walpaper
    > on Mondays and Thursdays. PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING)
    > Walrus websites: http://web.newsguy.com/evilsideshowbob/
    > For Contest Archives & Artists http://www.weeklywalrus.com
    > =========================================================================
     
    ManoDestra, Jul 24, 2003
    #18
  19. Joshua St. John

    Philip Ronan Guest

    On 03.7.24 8:53 PM, ManoDestra wrote:

    > If someone comes to me looking for a simple way to send feedback emails back
    > from his website, but his web server doesn't support cgi, what am I going to
    > say to him. Trash your current hosting and go somewhere else. Then what if
    > he can't afford that.


    Personally I'd suggest a plain email link, although there are various other
    free alternatives, e.g.

    http://freedback.com/
    http://www.response-o-matic.com/
    http://formmail.to/

    Just my 2p worth

    --
    Philip Ronan

    (Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)
     
    Philip Ronan, Jul 24, 2003
    #19
  20. Joshua St. John

    Dan Brussee Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > In alt.html ManoDestra <> wrote:
    > > I love getting my words twisted by amateurs...

    >
    > That hasn't happened in this thread.
    >
    > > It has it's
    > > applications in the real world, whether you like it or not.

    >
    > Well, yeah, it makes a fine moron detector, now that you mention it.
    >


    How bout we all get over ourselves already. I sure would hate to have a
    client read the messages that get bandied about here sometimes.

    1. Mailto does not work all the time. Everyone in agreement? Good.
    2. Mailto does work a lot of the time. Still with me?
    3. If the email is not mission critical, then go for it. As long as the
    client knows it's limitations, it's up to them to decide if the costs
    involved (time, monthly server costs, relying on yet ANOTHER host to
    provide a service <sigh>) are worth the potential downside.

    For example, if I was relying on a mailto link to provide a method of
    getting orders for a product, I would certainly think twice. However, if
    it was on my home page as a way for someone to bitch to me that I am not
    perfect, then I really do not mind missing a few :)



    --

    Remove NOT from email address to reply. AntiSpam in action.
     
    Dan Brussee, Jul 24, 2003
    #20
    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. Sparky Arbuckle

    Brinkster Form Mailer Problem

    Sparky Arbuckle, Feb 27, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    494
    Sparky Arbuckle
    Feb 27, 2005
  2. Andrzej Adam Filip
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    4,187
    Andrzej Adam Filip
    Mar 31, 2008
  3. Gregory

    form mailer for info + files

    Gregory, Jan 18, 2010, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    264
    Gregory
    Jan 18, 2010
  4. Mark Creelman

    Multiple field form for this ASP mailer script

    Mark Creelman, Apr 3, 2004, in forum: ASP General
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    577
    Steven Burn
    Apr 3, 2004
  5. gwmbox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    137
    gwmbox
    Jul 9, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page