G
gcc
Is it possible?
If So How?
Thanks
If So How?
Thanks
P
Philip Ronan
L
Lauri Raittila
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...
G
gcc
M
Michael Wilcox
gcc said:
mailto:[email protected][email protected]&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.
M
Mark Parnell
D
David Dorward
gcc said:
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.
P
Philip Ronan
Mark said:
This page is about the pitfalls of using "mailto:" to submit HTML forms. It
has nothing to do with mailto links.
M
Mark Parnell
Previously in alt.html said:
They are still just as unreliable, though admittedly without some of the
more dangerous security problems.
P
Philip Ronan
Mark said:
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.
M
Mark Parnell
Previously in alt.html, Philip Ronan <[email protected]> said:
[mailto: links]
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.
Lots of things are valid; that doesn't mean they are good practise.
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.
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.
[mailto: links]
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.
Lots of things are valid; that doesn't mean they are good practise.
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.
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.
P
Philip Ronan
Mark said:
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:[email protected]?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:[email protected]?subject="I%20visited%20your%20site"&cc="anotheru
(e-mail address removed)">
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.
G
gcc
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
G
gcc
Actually I Can't...Hmmmm
Tried this tho.....
mailto:[email protected][email protected];
(e-mail address removed)&Subject=example
And it did......lol
D
Dan
gcc said:
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 &.
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.
M
Mark Parnell
Previously in alt.html, Philip Ronan <[email protected]> said:
[mailto:]
That is something that should be taken up with the FAQ maintainer (who I
haven't actually seen around here for quite some time).
Though technically it is still only a _proposed_ standard.
I'm still of the opinion that the visitor has a much better idea of the
subject of their email than I do. YMMV.
[mailto:]
<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).
Though technically it is still only a _proposed_ standard.
I'm still of the opinion that the visitor has a much better idea of the
subject of their email than I do. YMMV.
P
Philip Ronan
Mark said:[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".
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?
M
Mark Parnell
Previously in alt.html said:
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.
P
Philip Ronan
Mark said: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