469,326 Members | 1,415 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,326 developers. It's quick & easy.

Determine user's default email client

Is there a way to determine what a user's default email client is? I
read a post from 3 years ago that said no. I guess I'm hoping
something has come along since then.
Jul 23 '05
88 10554
Richard Cornford wrote:
Are you really proposing that when people put a mailto link on a web
site that their intention is no more, and no less, than to open an
unknown piece of e-mail composing software.
Exactly. What are you talking about?
We know that it is more than none, but when you have an option to cope
with 100% reliably the exact numbers don't matter.
I have not found web based form email pages to be 100% reliable. In fact
I've seen many times when they've failed.
So you don't believe that communication is the intended purpose
(intended by the site owner, and possibly web developer if they are
not realistic enough to see where it cannot work)?
The communication happens in the email client based on what the emailer
then composes (i.e. free form).
You believe that it is bad to provide the user with something reliable?
I feel it's bad to limit people to what you think email is by
reinventing email at each web page.
You can have opinions as foolish as takes your fancy, but if you post
them to a public forum you should expect your fallacies to be pointed out.


I don't see them as fallacies - just other opinions.
--
Honk If you want to see my finger

Jul 23 '05 #51
Lee
Philip Ronan said:

On 7/10/04 10:18 pm, Lee wrote:
1. User clicks mailto link.
2. No email client appears
3. User says "this site is broken", and moves on.


Uh, yeah. Like, nobody would assume there's something wrong with the browser
set-up or anything, would they?


Of course many people will, but not all, and your goal is
(usually) to reach as many people as possible.

You want to see a broken site?

<http://www.coxmedia.com/contact.html>
... Not your handiwork, I hope (?)


I don't work for Cox.
One of my email addresses happens to be hosted by them.

Jul 23 '05 #52
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Assessing the relative merits of Lotus Notes is of no value here. It
is a reality that entire companies use it exclusively (and their
system administrators will probably not allow users to install their
own software (licensing being only one reason for that).


That's exactly the kinds of users I don't want as customers! And what
sort of licensing do you think is required for Mozilla/Thunderbird?


That's funny, man. Good joke.
You obviousely don't have your own business, with sucn an approach.
But no doubt, if you'd tell your boss that you don't like some category of users as your customers
you'd get your ass fired faster that your Pentium 586/90 reboots :)

Ok. i understand, you are preying standards, that's no bad at all.
But didn't you think of hundreds of thousands users of yahoo mail, google mail etc, who don't have a
"luxury"(need) of configuring/using a mail client? You don't like them as your customers, do you?
I myself use only those two mentioned email providers, google and yahoo, and i'm perfectly fine with
them, so how do you want me to configure my Firefox for an email server which doesn't have a
pop3/smtp access?

Anyway, the universal solution is mailto: + web form.

Now, go complain.
MuZZy

<... heh ...>
Jul 23 '05 #53
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
Are you really proposing that when people put a mailto link on a web
site that their intention is no more, and no less, than to open an
unknown piece of e-mail composing software.


Exactly. What are you talking about?
We know that it is more than none, but when you have an option to cope
with 100% reliably the exact numbers don't matter.


I have not found web based form email pages to be 100% reliable. In fact
I've seen many times when they've failed.


Anndrew, it's not a web based form fails, it's the programmer who didn't bother testing it/doesn't
have skils to programm it. All the forms i've ever made in perl/php/python/asp.net are working fine
while used hard(not hardly :)), maybe couple times a year a form fails because of SQL Server locks,
or smth like that. But you give any customer a chance to communicate with you - from internet cafe,
from lynx browser, from PDA, etc.

I just don't understand - are you against forms at all, or just stand for mailto: ?

Jul 23 '05 #54
Andrey wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Assessing the relative merits of Lotus Notes is of no value here. It
is a reality that entire companies use it exclusively (and their
system administrators will probably not allow users to install their
own software (licensing being only one reason for that).
That's exactly the kinds of users I don't want as customers! And what
sort of licensing do you think is required for Mozilla/Thunderbird?


That's funny, man. Good joke.


I'm glad I have managed to amuse you.
You obviousely don't have your own business, with sucn an approach.
To the contrary - I do have my own business. I don't have traditional
sales though.
But no doubt, if you'd tell your boss that you don't like some
category of users as your customers you'd get your ass fired faster
that your Pentium 586/90 reboots :)
Being that I'm my own boss I find that hard to believe! Wait a sec... Uh
huh... Right. Well I just checked with myself and I told myself that I
would not fire myself. I feel better already! :-)
Ok. i understand, you are preying standards, that's no bad at all. But
didn't you think of hundreds of thousands users of yahoo mail, google
mail etc, who don't have a "luxury"(need) of configuring/using a mail
client?
If they don't have the need then why is there an issue at all?
You don't like them as your customers, do you?
Truth be told 99.999% of them will never end up being my customers or
will be able to handle email with a real email client in the first
place. Or, they could easily pick up the phone and dial. Remember those?
A lot of business is still being done in that fashion.
I myself use only those two mentioned email providers, google and
yahoo, and i'm perfectly fine with them, so how do you want me to
configure my Firefox for an email server which doesn't have a
pop3/smtp access?
I"m not quite sure. Firefox is a browser! ;-)

Why would you be trying to configure a browser to do pop3/smtp?!?

Did you mean Thunderbird? ;-)
Anyway, the universal solution is mailto: + web form.
If you include the mailto link then fine.
Now, go complain.


I prefer just to comment.
--
Why are people willing to get off their ass to search the entire room
for the TV remote because they refuse to walk to the TV and change the
channel manually?
Jul 23 '05 #55
Andrey wrote:
Anndrew, it's not a web based form fails, it's the programmer who
didn't bother testing it/doesn't have skils to programm it. All the
forms i've ever made in perl/php/python/asp.net are working fine while
used hard(not hardly :)), maybe couple times a year a form fails
because of SQL Server locks, or smth like that. But you give any
customer a chance to communicate with you - from internet cafe, from
lynx browser, from PDA, etc.
I assure you I've had more than a couple times a year of failure myself.
From a user perspective it doesn't really matter if the real reason is
the back end, out of disk space, DB currently being backed up or
whatever. It simply failed.
I just don't understand - are you against forms at all, or just stand
for mailto: ?


I'm against email based web forms where the user is limited to what the
designer thinks email should be like and/or that obscures the recipients
really email address thus allowing companies to hide behind a close of
anonymity.

--
When something is "new and improved!". Which is it? If it's new, then
there has never been anything before it. If it's an improvement, then
there must have been something before it.
Jul 23 '05 #56
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Andrey wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Assessing the relative merits of Lotus Notes is of no value here. It
is a reality that entire companies use it exclusively (and their
system administrators will probably not allow users to install their
own software (licensing being only one reason for that).
That's exactly the kinds of users I don't want as customers! And what
sort of licensing do you think is required for Mozilla/Thunderbird?

That's funny, man. Good joke.

I'm glad I have managed to amuse you.


I would say - entertain :)
You obviousely don't have your own business, with sucn an approach.

To the contrary - I do have my own business. I don't have traditional
sales though.


Then i see...
But no doubt, if you'd tell your boss that you don't like some
category of users as your customers you'd get your ass fired faster
that your Pentium 586/90 reboots :)

Being that I'm my own boss I find that hard to believe! Wait a sec... Uh
huh... Right. Well I just checked with myself and I told myself that I
would not fire myself. I feel better already! :-)


:)
Ok. i understand, you are preying standards, that's no bad at all. But
didn't you think of hundreds of thousands users of yahoo mail, google
mail etc, who don't have a "luxury"(need) of configuring/using a mail
client?

If they don't have the need then why is there an issue at all?


What is an issue then is mailto: - in this case they need web form
You don't like them as your customers, do you?

Truth be told 99.999% of them will never end up being my customers or
will be able to handle email with a real email client in the first
place. Or, they could easily pick up the phone and dial. Remember those?
A lot of business is still being done in that fashion.


Right, i do too. But when i can't access them by phone (battery died, no reception, nobody's
responding, hold on line for 30 min etc.) i email them thru a web form on their web site
I myself use only those two mentioned email providers, google and
yahoo, and i'm perfectly fine with them, so how do you want me to
configure my Firefox for an email server which doesn't have a
pop3/smtp access?

I"m not quite sure. Firefox is a browser! ;-)

Why would you be trying to configure a browser to do pop3/smtp?!?

Did you mean Thunderbird? ;-)


Oops, yes :)
Anyway, the universal solution is mailto: + web form.

If you include the mailto link then fine.

Here we go - i'm not against mailto:, i'm just saying it should be extended by existance of a web
form. So now we are on the same page!
Jul 23 '05 #57
Andrey wrote:
Ok. i understand, you are preying standards, that's no bad at all.
But didn't you think of hundreds of thousands users of yahoo mail,
google mail etc, who don't have a "luxury"(need) of
configuring/using a mail client?
If they don't have the need then why is there an issue at all?


What is an issue then is mailto: - in this case they need web form


Let's look at this a little more in depth. Aside from people at Internet
Cafe's where configuration/availability of an email client at all is
questionable (and really what sort of business trolls for customers
through Internet Cafe's?) let's take the web based email user who's on a
friend's computer or has purposely given up on using an email client on
their computer. They are at a web page. There is a mailto link, again,
intended to allow a free form email message to be kicked off. He clicks
it and it fails utterly to do what it was supposed to, that being start
up the client's configured email composition tool because it either is
not configured or not available. What can the poor user do? Well what
exactly stops him from copying and pasting the email address into his
configured and preferred email "client" of choice?!? After all that's
all that the mailto link is doing anyway!
You don't like them as your customers, do you?


Truth be told 99.999% of them will never end up being my customers or
will be able to handle email with a real email client in the first
place. Or, they could easily pick up the phone and dial. Remember
those? A lot of business is still being done in that fashion.


Right, i do too. But when i can't access them by phone (battery died,
no reception, nobody's responding, hold on line for 30 min etc.) i
email them thru a web form on their web site


Such is life! The power might go out in the Internet Cafe too! Or the
internet connection may be down. Things happen.
Here we go - i'm not against mailto:, i'm just saying it should be
extended by existance of a web form. So now we are on the same page!


As I've said, I'm against two things in general. 1) the hiding of the
recipients email address and 2) the limiting of the full capabilities of
a good email client.

--
Back off man. I'm a scientist.
Jul 23 '05 #58
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
As I've said, I'm against two things in general. 1) the hiding of the
recipients email address


So are most email spammers.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq
Jul 23 '05 #59
Randy Webb wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
As I've said, I'm against two things in general. 1) the hiding of the
recipients email address


So are most email spammers.


Yeah, and so? Are you trying to imply that I'm a spammer? I am not.

There are very legitimate reasons to want to know the contact
information of the people you are emailing if for no other reason than
following up.

Spam, unfortunately, is a way of life and there's not much you can do to
stop it. Instead get something to protect yourself against spam and to
block/filter it.

--
The other day I was playing poker with Tarot cards. I got a full house
and four people died.
Jul 23 '05 #60
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Randy Webb wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
As I've said, I'm against two things in general. 1) the hiding of the
recipients email address

So are most email spammers.

Yeah, and so? Are you trying to imply that I'm a spammer? I am not.


I was not implying anything. I made a statement of my own opinion, much
as you have been doing this entire thread.
There are very legitimate reasons to want to know the contact
information of the people you are emailing if for no other reason than
following up.
Typically, in a larger business, there is one email address that
recieves all the email, its forwarded to people who reply to it, and
then you get the follow up. If not, then you are still stuck with the
original address which is of no use to you because you won't get the
same person twice. Telephone Tech Support is the same way.
Spam, unfortunately, is a way of life and there's not much you can do to
stop it. Instead get something to protect yourself against spam and to
block/filter it.


And the reason a lot of spam gets generated is email harvesting software
that searches pages for, among other things, mailto: links. I have yet
to see a spammer be able to get my email address from a contact form.

Either way, its irrelevant as mailto: always has been and is currently
*Broken*.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq
Jul 23 '05 #61
Dr John Stockton wrote:
Richard Cornford posted :
Mr Edgell come to this (unexpected, even in 1919) conclusion
through prolonged observation of the poll star. ...
<snip> 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.


The tube is described as 3/4 inch diameter by 3 foot 6 inches long. That
gives about 2 degrees of potentially observable sky. A rigorous observer
should have spotted the anomaly (at least over time) but as they say;
"There's none so blind as those that will not see", and in all things
Edgell observed only what he wanted to.

If you are interested in understanding Mr Edgell's shortcomings in this
respect you can have a look at his book. I have resurrected the web page
transcripts of it:-

<URL: http://www.litotes.demon.co.uk/dTeR/...rthRotate.html >
(about 240Kb with immages/diagrames)

Richard.


Jul 23 '05 #62
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite">Are you really proposing that when people put a mailto
link on a web site that their intention is no more, and no less,
than to open an unknown piece of e-mail composing software.
</blockquote> Exactly. What are you talking about?<br>
I am responding to your assertion that the point of putting a mailto
link in a web page is to open an e-mail client, rather than to
facilitate communication.
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite">We know that it is more than none, but when you
have an option to cope with 100% reliably the exact numbers
don't matter. </blockquote> I have not found web based form
email pages to be 100% reliable. In fact I've seen many
times when they've failed.<br>
The general circumstances where form mail will fail, network failures,
power cuts, server failures, etc, have an equal impact on normal e-mail
traffic. But apart from those conditions we are still left with a list
of conditions under which mailto will certainly fail where normal
HTTP/HTML forms/server-side scripting will be 100% reliable.

There is always potential for the implementers of a form mail system to
screw something up and render the reliable unreliable. That is a result
of the lamentable average quality of web developers. It should not be an
excuse for never using reliable communication mechanisms.
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite">So you don't believe that communication is the
intended purpose (intended by the site owner, and possibly
web developer if they are not realistic enough to see where
it cannot work)?<br>
</blockquote>
The communication happens in the email client based on what
the emailer then composes (i.e. free form).<br>
Communication requires transmission in addition to composition.
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite"><!---->You believe that it is bad to provide the
user with something reliable?<br></blockquote>
I feel it's bad to limit people to what you think email is by
reinventing email at each web page.<br>


There are no limitations imposed by facilitating reliable communication.

Richard.
Jul 23 '05 #63
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite">Assessing the relative merits of Lotus Notes is
of no value here. It is a reality that entire companies use
it exclusively (and their system administrators will probably
not allow users to install their own software (licensing being
only one reason for that). </blockquote>
That's exactly the kinds of users I don't want as customers!
If you don't want those customers that is your business (literally), but
most web authoring is done as a service to business and it is not the
web developers place to be turning away other people's business for them
(at least without explicit and informed permission).
And what sort of licensing do you think is required for
Mozilla/Thunderbird?<br>
The point is to prevent the users from being able to install software
that would need a licence without the knowledge and permission of the
administrators. That stops them installing any software but it is the
safer policy.

<snip> <blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite">What's a coder to do?
Rely on standards! But when you rely on standards some
people will still complain! Argh!&lt;br&gt;<br> </blockquote>
<!---->Relying on standards is not a practical proposition.
</blockquote> That's an interesting statement. So then what
is the practical proposition in your opinion?<br>
Normal cross-browser scripting gets as much from any browser as it is
capable of delivering. While the formal observance of the DOM standards
reduces IE6's capabilities to little more than form validation and image
roll-overs.
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk
" type="cite">In HTML terms reliably posting text (in any form)
to a server will involve a form.<br>
</blockquote>
I'm not talking about reliably posting text to a server,
I'm talking merely about sending an email. I think that
that is where we differ.<br>


You appear to be talking about you personally sending an e-mail. But in
the context of web development the significant concept is communication.
Once reliable communication is facilitated then additional action to
accommodate individual preferences can be considered, but sacrificing
reliability for individual convenience would be negligent.

Richard.
Jul 23 '05 #64
Richard Cornford wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite">Are you really proposing that when people put a mailto
link on a web site that their intention is no more, and no less,
than to open an unknown piece of e-mail composing software.
</blockquote> Exactly. What are you talking about?<br>
I am responding to your assertion that the point of putting a mailto
link in a web page is to open an e-mail client, rather than to
facilitate communication.


You're being obtuse! You put a mailto link in a web page to open an
e-mail client to facilitate communication and you know that!
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite">We know that it is more than none, but when you
have an option to cope with 100% reliably the exact numbers
don't matter. </blockquote> I have not found web based form
email pages to be 100% reliable. In fact I've seen many
times when they've failed.<br>


The general circumstances where form mail will fail, network failures,
power cuts, server failures, etc, have an equal impact on normal
e-mail traffic. But apart from those conditions we are still left with
a list of conditions under which mailto will certainly fail where
normal HTTP/HTML forms/server-side scripting will be 100% reliable.


As you have a list of conditions under which a form based email will
fail where a mailto will succeed. What's your point?
There is always potential for the implementers of a form mail system
to screw something up and render the reliable unreliable.
Observed actually
That is a result of the lamentable average quality of web developers.
It should not be an excuse for never using reliable communication
mechanisms.


And you can have the web server fail or run out of space whereas the
mail server is churning out and in emails. There are many possibilities,
none of which you've considered.
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite">So you don't believe that communication is the
intended purpose (intended by the site owner, and possibly
web developer if they are not realistic enough to see where
it cannot work)?<br>
</blockquote>
The communication happens in the email client based on what
the emailer then composes (i.e. free form).<br>


Communication requires transmission in addition to composition.


Obviously. Again, what's your point? I'm assuming that the person can
indeed send email. You're assuming the person can indeed browse.
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite"><!---->You believe that it is bad to provide the
user with something reliable?<br></blockquote>
I feel it's bad to limit people to what you think email is by
reinventing email at each web page.<br>


There are no limitations imposed by facilitating reliable communication.


Sure there is! Open up your mind a little bit!

--
Buy a Pentium 586/90 so you can reboot faster.
Jul 23 '05 #65
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote: I am responding to your assertion that the point of putting
a mailto link in a web page is to open an e-mail client,
rather than to facilitate communication.


You're being obtuse! You put a mailto link in a web page to
open an e-mail client to facilitate communication and you
know that!


I am not being obtuse, I am looking at the design requirement before
considering the mechanisms by which it might best be achieved. The
design requirement is to facilitate communication; achieving that is the
goal of any implementation, and preferably doing so reliably.
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite">We know that it is more than none, but when you
have an option to cope with 100% reliably the exact numbers
don't matter. </blockquote> I have not found web based form
email pages to be 100% reliable. In fact I've seen many
times when they've failed.<br>


The general circumstances where form mail will fail,
network failures, power cuts, server failures, etc, have
an equal impact on normal e-mail traffic. ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
But apart from those conditions we are still left with a
list of conditions under which mailto will certainly fail
where normal HTTP/HTML forms/server-side scripting will
be 100% reliable.


As you have a list of conditions under which a form based
email will fail where a mailto will succeed. What's your point?


Where is such a list?
There is always potential for the implementers of a form mail
system to screw something up and render the reliable unreliable.


Observed actually
That is a result of the lamentable average quality of web
developers. It should not be an excuse for never using
reliable communication mechanisms.


And you can have the web server fail or run out of space
whereas the mail server is churning out and in emails. There
are many possibilities, none of which you've considered.


There are no types of application server failure that mail servers are
not equally susceptible to.

<snip> Obviously. Again, what's your point? I'm assuming that the
person can indeed send email. You're assuming the person
can indeed browse.


You assumption is known not to hold for all client-side systems, while
whenever an individual has accessed a web-page with either a mailto link
or a mail form over the internet the ability to browse has been
demonstrated.
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite"><!---->You believe that it is bad to provide
the user with something reliable?<br></blockquote>
I feel it's bad to limit people to what you think email is
by reinventing email at each web page.<br>


There are no limitations imposed by facilitating reliable
communication.


Sure there is! Open up your mind a little bit!


Open my mind to what exactly? You have proposed no limitations imposed
by the use of an e-mail form on a web page, and I don't see how you
could because the existence of a form, and the server-side code to back
it up, does not preclude either the possibility of short-circuiting the
submission of the mail into a background post using XML HTTP Request
objects (where supported) or the provision of a mailto link in addition.
Layering alternatives over a reliable foundation is not restricted by
anything but the capabilities of the client, and certainly not by the
existence of the reliable foundation.

Richard.
Jul 23 '05 #66
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite">Are you really proposing that when people put a mailto
link on a web site that their intention is no more, and no less,
than to open an unknown piece of e-mail composing software.
</blockquote> Exactly. What are you talking about?<br>

I am responding to your assertion that the point of putting a mailto
link in a web page is to open an e-mail client, rather than to
facilitate communication.

You're being obtuse! You put a mailto link in a web page to open an
e-mail client to facilitate communication and you know that!


No, its put there in the *hopes* that it opens an email client (if it
even exists on the system). The same is not true of a form as there is
nothing to open.
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite">We know that it is more than none, but when you
have an option to cope with 100% reliably the exact numbers
don't matter. </blockquote> I have not found web based form
email pages to be 100% reliable. In fact I've seen many
times when they've failed.<br>

The general circumstances where form mail will fail, network failures,
power cuts, server failures, etc, have an equal impact on normal
e-mail traffic. But apart from those conditions we are still left with
a list of conditions under which mailto will certainly fail where
normal HTTP/HTML forms/server-side scripting will be 100% reliable.

As you have a list of conditions under which a form based email will
fail where a mailto will succeed. What's your point?


No, he listed things that will cause either or both to fail. The same
list is inclusive of forms, but not to mailto: as there are more things
that can fail with mailto: than with forms. Perhaps you should re-read
what he said and pay attention to the part that says "an equal impact on
normal e-mail traffic".
There is always potential for the implementers of a form mail system
to screw something up and render the reliable unreliable.

Observed actually


Not near as many times as I have observed a mailto: link not working
properly.
That is a result of the lamentable average quality of web developers.
It should not be an excuse for never using reliable communication
mechanisms.

And you can have the web server fail or run out of space whereas the
mail server is churning out and in emails. There are many possibilities,
none of which you've considered.


Yes, he even listed them. As there is no need to save the emails on the
server, thats a non-issue. If the server is set up properly to handle
it, then the email is not "saved", it is forwarded (emailed) to an
inbox. Whereas it becomes part of the normal email system. The
difference (which you refuse to admit) is the reliablity of the
mechanism used to get the information into the email system.
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite">So you don't believe that communication is the
intended purpose (intended by the site owner, and possibly
web developer if they are not realistic enough to see where
it cannot work)?<br>
</blockquote>
The communication happens in the email client based on what
the emailer then composes (i.e. free form).<br>

Communication requires transmission in addition to composition.

Obviously. Again, what's your point? I'm assuming that the person can
indeed send email. You're assuming the person can indeed browse.


And one method is more reliable than the other. You just refuse to "open
your mind" (your own words) and realize it.
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite"><!---->You believe that it is bad to provide the
user with something reliable?<br></blockquote>
I feel it's bad to limit people to what you think email is by
reinventing email at each web page.<br>

There are no limitations imposed by facilitating reliable communication.

Sure there is! Open up your mind a little bit!


Ummm, what limitations are imposed by facilitating reliable communication?

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq
Answer:It destroys the order of the conversation
Question: Why?
Answer: Top-Posting.
Question: Whats the most annoying thing on Usenet?
Jul 23 '05 #67
Richard Cornford wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

I am responding to your assertion that the point of putting a mailto
link in a web page is to open an e-mail client, rather than to
facilitate communication.
You're being obtuse! You put a mailto link in a web page to open an
e-mail client to facilitate communication and you know that!


I am not being obtuse, I am looking at the design requirement before
considering the mechanisms by which it might best be achieved. The
design requirement is to facilitate communication; achieving that is
the goal of any implementation, and preferably doing so reliably.


And as I've told you countless times now, mailto links facilitate
communications just fine for me and millions of others. I've also
pointed out that your web based form email also has failure points.
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite">We know that it is more than none, but when you have an
option to cope with 100% reliably the exact numbers
don't matter. </blockquote> I have not found web based form email
pages to be 100% reliable. In fact I've seen many times when
they've failed.<br>

The general circumstances where form mail will fail, network
failures, power cuts, server failures, etc, have an equal impact on
normal e-mail traffic.

^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
But apart from those conditions we are still left with a list of
conditions under which mailto will certainly fail where normal
HTTP/HTML forms/server-side scripting will be 100% reliable.


As you have a list of conditions under which a form based email will
fail where a mailto will succeed. What's your point?


Where is such a list?


I'm not sure. I thought you had it! :-)

But seriously you're pointing out failure points for mailto links which
is your list. I'm saying there are failure points for web based email
too, which would be my list.
There is always potential for the implementers of a form mail system
to screw something up and render the reliable unreliable.


Observed actually
That is a result of the lamentable average quality of web
developers. It should not be an excuse for never using reliable
communication mechanisms.


And you can have the web server fail or run out of space whereas the
mail server is churning out and in emails. There are many
possibilities, none of which you've considered.


There are no types of application server failure that mail servers are
not equally susceptible to.


Yes that is unless the web server is on host A and it's trashed while
the email server is on host B which is working just fine. And there are
many other ways that even if the two services are coexisting on the same
system where one is down and the other is still providing service.
<snip>
Obviously. Again, what's your point? I'm assuming that the person can
indeed send email. You're assuming the person can indeed browse.
You assumption is known not to hold for all client-side systems, while
whenever an individual has accessed a web-page with either a mailto
link or a mail form over the internet the ability to browse has been
demonstrated.


Not necessarily the case. Some browsers don't even support forms
(ancient I agree but true nonetheless). Also many other browsers have
problems navigating through proprietary only web sites, for example.
Finally it is possible that a person has configured his email client but
lacks a browser, yet the email he just received has a link that he
cannot browse to! Again there many forms of failures.
<blockquote cite="mi**********************@news.demon.co.uk"
type="cite"><!---->You believe that it is bad to provide the user
with something reliable?<br></blockquote> I feel it's bad to limit
people to what you think email is by reinventing email at each web
page.<br>

There are no limitations imposed by facilitating reliable communication.


Sure there is! Open up your mind a little bit!


Open my mind to what exactly?


To the fact that you ain't got 100% reliability either.
You have proposed no limitations imposed by the use of an e-mail form
on a web page, and I don't see how you could because the existence of
a form, and the server-side code to back it up, does not preclude
either the possibility of short-circuiting the submission of the mail
into a background post using XML HTTP Request objects (where supported)
Or using an bona fide email client (again, where supported! ;-) )
or the provision of a mailto link in addition.
In addition is cool. We've already established that.
Layering alternatives over a reliable foundation is not restricted by
anything but the capabilities of the client, and certainly not by the
existence of the reliable foundation.

--
SENILE.COM found . . . Out Of Memory . . .

Jul 23 '05 #68
Randy Webb wrote:
You're being obtuse! You put a mailto link in a web page to open an
e-mail client to facilitate communication and you know that!
No, its put there in the *hopes* that it opens an email client (if it
even exists on the system). The same is not true of a form as there is
nothing to open.


Likewise you are hoping that the browser can indeed navigate your site
and support forms.
As you have a list of conditions under which a form based email will
fail where a mailto will succeed. What's your point?


No, he listed things that will cause either or both to fail. The same
list is inclusive of forms, but not to mailto: as there are more
things that can fail with mailto: than with forms. Perhaps you should
re-read what he said and pay attention to the part that says "an equal
impact on normal e-mail traffic".


Again, the web server can be on host A and have filled disks whereas the
mail server can be on host B and have tons of space.
Yes, he even listed them. As there is no need to save the emails on
the server, thats a non-issue. If the server is set up properly to
handle it, then the email is not "saved", it is forwarded (emailed) to
an inbox.
And in the meantime it hangs out in mqueue and often has other people's
mbox's on them that tend to grow without bound.
Whereas it becomes part of the normal email system. The difference
(which you refuse to admit) is the reliablity of the mechanism used to
get the information into the email system.


All I'm saying is that failures can happen in both methods and neither
is 100%.
Obviously. Again, what's your point? I'm assuming that the person can
indeed send email. You're assuming the person can indeed browse.


And one method is more reliable than the other. You just refuse to
"open your mind" (your own words) and realize it.


I haven't seen any data to support that point. I've had far more
failures with web sites and their email forms than I've ever had with my
email client. YMMV, however, mine hasn't!
There are no limitations imposed by facilitating reliable
communication.


Sure there is! Open up your mind a little bit!


Ummm, what limitations are imposed by facilitating reliable
communication?


His assumption is that it's 100% reliable and that's not true.

--
One out of every three Americans is suffering from some form of mental
illness. Think of two of your best friends. If they are OK, then it must
be you.
Jul 23 '05 #69
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:38:03 -0700, Andrew DeFaria <An****@DeFaria.com>
wrote:

[snip]
Likewise you are hoping that the browser can indeed navigate your site
and support forms.
WTF? How do you propose that a mailto: link would be of more use here then?

This is why I find this thread so annoying. You aren't arguing on the same
grounds. This debate is based upon communication initiated from a web
page. Anything else is irrelevant, and your point is a prime example of
that.

Personally, I think this thread should end. If it ever had a purpose, it's
certainly lost it now.

[snip]
All I'm saying is that failures can happen in both methods and neither
is 100%.


And who said otherwise? Of course both methods can fail, but the majority
of those failures - server errors, power cuts, etc - are beyond the
control of both the developer and the user. However, what the developer
can control is how communication is initiated.

The problem with mailto:, and the whole basis of the debate in this
thread, is that it makes an unreasonable assumption about the user's
configuration; that they have a default mail client associated with the
browser. A form does not make any assumptions. It is entirely reasonable
to expect a browser to support forms as they have been part of the HTML
Specification for years.

There is no reason why a mailto: link cannot appear on a page, but it
should not be solely relied upon for communication. Why is that so
difficult to accept?

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.
Jul 23 '05 #70
Michael Winter wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:38:03 -0700, Andrew DeFaria
<An****@DeFaria.com> wrote:
[snip]
Likewise you are hoping that the browser can indeed navigate your
site and support forms.
WTF? How do you propose that a mailto: link would be of more use here
then?


I never proposed that. I'm simply pointing out that there are situations
where your scenarios fails too. I agree that if you can't navigate the
site then you can't navigate the site. However there are sites that are
not navigatable by one browser, say Mozilla, because the developer chose
a form approach along with some proprietary features of a particular
browser, say IE, and that user is then impeded from being able to email
(i.e. communicate) whereas his browser of choice (Mozilla) has an email
client that works fine and a mailto link instead of the proprietary IE
only web based form (not that Mozilla can't handle forms too rather the
parts used in the form are say Active X controls or some other IE only
dohicky) would have worked just fine. IOW this is a situation that fails
your "forms are 100% reliable" assertion. And I've actually had quite a
few instances where this was the case for me.
This is why I find this thread so annoying. You aren't arguing on the
same grounds. This debate is based upon communication initiated from
a web page. Anything else is irrelevant, and your point is a prime
example of that.
You apparently do not understand my point.
Personally, I think this thread should end. If it ever had a purpose,
it's certainly lost it now.
The power to end this thread for you personally was within your grasp
from the beginning. If you do not wish to discuss this then simply stop.
[snip]
All I'm saying is that failures can happen in both methods and
neither is 100%.
And who said otherwise? Of course both methods can fail, but the
majority of those failures - server errors, power cuts, etc - are
beyond the control of both the developer and the user. However, what
the developer can control is how communication is initiated.


It was you would asserted form email is 100% reliable. I'm just refuting
that statement.
The problem with mailto:, and the whole basis of the debate in this
thread, is that it makes an unreasonable assumption about the user's
configuration; that they have a default mail client associated with
the browser. A form does not make any assumptions. It is entirely
reasonable to expect a browser to support forms as they have been
part of the HTML Specification for years.
The problem with web based email forms is that they too make several
assumptions. They assume that the browser supports forms (probably a
pretty safe assumption) and that the web server, email server, etc are
all functioning. They also assume they have not put up other impedemints
for the user to huddle including browser differences and proprietary
controls.
There is no reason why a mailto: link cannot appear on a page, but it
should not be solely relied upon for communication. Why is that so
difficult to accept?


I agree that there is no reason why a mailto: link cannot appear. In
fact many sites have them for contacting support, sales, web masters,
etc. I do not recall in the problem definition that we are relying
_solely _on a mailto link. Who said that?
--
Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity.

Jul 23 '05 #71
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:37:56 -0700, Andrew DeFaria <An****@DeFaria.com>
wrote:
Michael Winter wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:38:03 -0700, Andrew DeFaria
<An****@DeFaria.com> wrote:
[snip]
Likewise you are hoping that the browser can indeed navigate your site
and support forms.
WTF? How do you propose that a mailto: link would be of more use here
then?


I never proposed that.


I never said you did. It was a rhetorical question, implying that both
would be equally useless.
I'm simply pointing out that there are situations where your scenarios
fails too.
I know there are. Did you read my post properly? From what you've written
here, and later, I have reason to doubt that.
I agree that if you can't navigate the site then you can't navigate the
site. However there are sites that are not navigatable by one browser,
say Mozilla, because the developer chose a form approach along with some
proprietary features of a particular browser, say IE, [...]
If a developer makes something as simple as a form submission proprietary,
then that developer is a moron. This "argument" would fall under the "what
the developer can control" catagory I mentioned.

[snip]
This debate is based upon communication initiated from a web page.
Anything else is irrelevant, and your point is a prime example of that.


You apparently do not understand my point.


No. I can't say I've witnessed you make a point, thus far (except things
I've already stated).

[snip]
And who said otherwise? Of course both methods can fail, but the
majority of those failures - server errors, power cuts, etc - are
beyond the control of both the developer and the user. However, what
the developer can control is how communication is initiated.


It was you would asserted form email is 100% reliable. I'm just refuting
that statement.


When did I say that? Read the paragraph you just quoted. I said both
methods can fail, but some things are more reliable than others.
The problem with web based email forms is that they too make several
assumptions. They assume that the browser supports forms (probably a
pretty safe assumption)
I already stated that.
and that the web server, email server, etc are all functioning.
No-one has control over that. A mailto: link would fail if my mail server
was dead, too. I already know this and stated it (I'd count it as a server
error).
They also assume they have not put up other impedemints for the user to
huddle including browser differences and proprietary controls.
As I said: a developer that would do this is an idiot. I know there are
plenty of them around, but that is no reason to decry a method because of
moronic implementation, when the method itself is sound.

[snip]
I do not recall in the problem definition that we are relying _solely
_on a mailto link. Who said that?


It's implicit. It is the reason why the "solid advice" that Randy was
referring to at the start of this thread exists. People do rely solely
upon mailto:, and when it fails, communication doesn't occur. I haven't
seen the subject diverge, so if that hasn't been the basis of your
argument, then what on Earth are you talking about? Perhaps if that is
understood, this thread can, indeed, end.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.
Jul 23 '05 #72
JRS: In article <d2**************************@msgid.meganewsserver s.com
, dated Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:38:03, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Andrew DeFaria <An****@DeFaria.com> posted :
One out of every three Americans is suffering from some form of mental
illness. Think of two of your best friends. If they are OK, then it must
be you.


Yet more false logic. 95% of the world population does not directly
have that problem - though it may well question the accuracy of "One out
of every three".

--
John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
For news:borland.*, use their server newsgroups.borland.com ; but first read
Guidelines <URL:http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html> ff. with care.
Jul 23 '05 #73
Michael Winter wrote:
If a developer makes something as simple as a form submission
proprietary, then that developer is a moron. This "argument" would
fall under the "what the developer can control" catagory I mentioned.
That's all fine and good however you do realize that the world is full
of morons...
This debate is based upon communication initiated from a web page.
Anything else is irrelevant, and your point is a prime example of that.


You apparently do not understand my point.


No. I can't say I've witnessed you make a point, thus far (except
things I've already stated).


Well if you can't understand it then there is nothing more that I can do.
And who said otherwise? Of course both methods can fail, but the
majority of those failures - server errors, power cuts, etc - are
beyond the control of both the developer and the user. However,
what the developer can control is how communication is initiated.


It was you would asserted form email is 100% reliable. I'm just
refuting that statement.


When did I say that? Read the paragraph you just quoted. I said both
methods can fail, but some things are more reliable than others.


I thought it was you that stated that form based email is 100% reliable.
If so then sorry. In any event each method can and does fail and each
method has it's pluses and minuses.
The problem with web based email forms is that they too make several
assumptions. They assume that the browser supports forms (probably a
pretty safe assumption)


I already stated that.
and that the web server, email server, etc are all functioning.


No-one has control over that. A mailto: link would fail if my mail
server was dead, too. I already know this and stated it (I'd count it
as a server error).


Yes and that's part of my point. You don't have control over whether or
not the end user has configured his email client so that mailto would
succeed. Similarly you (often - some do) don't have control over whether
or not the mail server is up or the web sever is up. So then we are
arguing whether it is more common that a mailto link will fail or that a
web email form will fail. And with that I think we can simply agree to
disagree.
They also assume they have not put up other impedemints for the user
to huddle including browser differences and proprietary controls.


As I said: a developer that would do this is an idiot. I know there
are plenty of them around, but that is no reason to decry a method
because of moronic implementation, when the method itself is sound.


My decrying of web base email systems was already enumerated.
Reliability was not high on the list for me. But as has been said before
the solution is simple - provide both!
I do not recall in the problem definition that we are relying
_solely _on a mailto link. Who said that?


It's implicit.


No it was not at all implicit!
It is the reason why the "solid advice" that Randy was referring to
at the start of this thread exists. People do rely solely upon
mailto:, and when it fails, communication doesn't occur. I haven't
seen the subject diverge, so if that hasn't been the basis of your
argument, then what on Earth are you talking about? Perhaps if that
is understood, this thread can, indeed, end.


The thread can easily end from your perspective at any time by merely
ignoring it.

--
I got a new shadow. I had to get rid of the other one -- it wasn't doing
what I was doing.
Jul 23 '05 #74
Dr John Stockton wrote:
JRS: In article <d2**************************@msgid.meganewsserver s.com
, dated Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:38:03, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript,


Andrew DeFaria <An****@DeFaria.com> posted :
One out of every three Americans is suffering from some form of
mental illness. Think of two of your best friends. If they are OK,
then it must be you.


Yet more false logic. 95% of the world population does not directly
have that problem - though it may well question the accuracy of "One
out of every three".


A couple of points there doc:

1. It's a tagline! Intended to be funny!
2. Explaining or analyzing jokes just proves that you didn't "get it".
3. It did say Americans did it not?
4. America is not 95% of the world population!
5. If you have further questions see #1

Geeze...

--
All women are idiots... and I married their queen.
Jul 23 '05 #75
In article <PP**************@merlyn.demon.co.uk>, sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk
enlightened us with...
One out of every three Americans is suffering from some form of mental
illness. Think of two of your best friends. If they are OK, then it must
be you.


Yet more false logic. 95% of the world population does not directly
have that problem - though it may well question the accuracy of "One out
of every three".


Who stole your sense of humor?
You really ought to try to get it back.

--
--
~kaeli~
Frisbeetarianism (n.), The belief that, when you die, your
soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck there.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 23 '05 #76
kaeli wrote:
In article <PP**************@merlyn.demon.co.uk>, sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk
enlightened us with...
One out of every three Americans is suffering from some form of
mental illness. Think of two of your best friends. If they are OK,
then it must be you.


Yet more false logic. 95% of the world population does not directly
have that problem - though it may well question the accuracy of "One
out of every three".


Who stole your sense of humor? You really ought to try to get it back.


I think he lost it on his way to get a PhD! ;-)

--
My wife keeps complaining I never listen to her ...or something like that.

Jul 23 '05 #77
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Randy Webb wrote:
You're being obtuse! You put a mailto link in a web page to open an
e-mail client to facilitate communication and you know that!

No, its put there in the *hopes* that it opens an email client (if it
even exists on the system). The same is not true of a form as there is
nothing to open.

Likewise you are hoping that the browser can indeed navigate your site
and support forms.


OK, here's your chance. Name a browser that does not support forms that
is less than 10 years old. Otherwise, you are beating a dead horse. You
are also assuming that I make my forms/navigation browser dependent when
I don't. I probably test in more browsers than most people even know exist.

As you have a list of conditions under which a form based email will
fail where a mailto will succeed. What's your point?

No, he listed things that will cause either or both to fail. The same
list is inclusive of forms, but not to mailto: as there are more
things that can fail with mailto: than with forms. Perhaps you should
re-read what he said and pay attention to the part that says "an equal
impact on normal e-mail traffic".

Again, the web server can be on host A and have filled disks whereas the
mail server can be on host B and have tons of space.


And the vice versa is true. Thats another case of you beating a dead
horse. Anything that can impact a form can also impact the reliability
of a mailto:. The difference is there is one thing that can impact a
mailto: that does *not* impact a form. Thats the configuration of a
email-client on the client. Thats *two* pieces of software needed where
a form only needs one. You keep missing/ignoring that important difference.
Yes, he even listed them. As there is no need to save the emails on
the server, thats a non-issue. If the server is set up properly to
handle it, then the email is not "saved", it is forwarded (emailed) to
an inbox.

And in the meantime it hangs out in mqueue and often has other people's
mbox's on them that tend to grow without bound.


That same limitation applies to mailto:, so its another dead horse you
are beating.
Whereas it becomes part of the normal email system. The difference
(which you refuse to admit) is the reliablity of the mechanism used to
get the information into the email system.

All I'm saying is that failures can happen in both methods and neither
is 100%.


I have never said either is 100%. I said mailto: will fail more often
than a form will.
Obviously. Again, what's your point? I'm assuming that the person can
indeed send email. You're assuming the person can indeed browse.

And one method is more reliable than the other. You just refuse to
"open your mind" (your own words) and realize it.


I haven't seen any data to support that point. I've had far more
failures with web sites and their email forms than I've ever had with my
email client. YMMV, however, mine hasn't!


Now you want data. Geez. OK, here's you some data. AOL membership is
currently approximately 40 million users. The web-user base is estimated
at 200 million. That puts AOL users at about 20% of the market. The
mailto: example given on the MSDN site, that I posted here, does *not*
work in the AOL software. Thats ~20% of users that can not communicate
with you because of the mailto: link used. Your turn. Show some data on
browsers that do not support forms and submission. I genuinely want to
see that data.
There are no limitations imposed by facilitating reliable
communication.
Sure there is! Open up your mind a little bit!

Ummm, what limitations are imposed by facilitating reliable
communication?

His assumption is that it's 100% reliable and that's not true.


I personally disagree with the "100%" reliable. Nothing is 100%
reliable, simply because of the way that the web works. What I *will*
say is that, until proven otherwise, pure common sense says that forms
are more reliable than mailto:. Of course, you are welcome to attempt to
prove me wrong by naming some browsers, less than 10 years old, that do
not support forms.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq
Jul 23 '05 #78
Randy Webb wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Randy Webb wrote:
You're being obtuse! You put a mailto link in a web page to open an
e-mail client to facilitate communication and you know that!

No, its put there in the *hopes* that it opens an email client (if
it even exists on the system). The same is not true of a form as
there is nothing to open.
Likewise you are hoping that the browser can indeed navigate your
site and support forms.


OK, here's your chance. Name a browser that does not support forms
that is less than 10 years old. Otherwise, you are beating a dead horse.


According to http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto....jsp?number=1:

In April of 1995 Netscape 1.1 was released. The new browser added
table support as well as many of its own new HTML elements and
attributes. By the middle of that year most WWW users on the
Internet were using Netscape's browser.

I don't believe it had form support back then.
You are also assuming that I make my forms/navigation browser
dependent when I don't.
You do but many others don't.
I probably test in more browsers than most people even know exist.
That's you - not everybody.
As you have a list of conditions under which a form based email
will fail where a mailto will succeed. What's your point?

No, he listed things that will cause either or both to fail. The
same list is inclusive of forms, but not to mailto: as there are
more things that can fail with mailto: than with forms. Perhaps you
should re-read what he said and pay attention to the part that says
"an equal impact on normal e-mail traffic".


Again, the web server can be on host A and have filled disks whereas
the mail server can be on host B and have tons of space.


And the vice versa is true. Thats another case of you beating a dead
horse.


Not at all. They both have problems ergo neither are 100% reliable.
Anything that can impact a form can also impact the reliability of a
mailto:.
Not true. A form could, for example, want you to fill out a drop down
and get the entries for a drop down from a database. The database can be
experiencing a problem thus the form fails. Whereas a mailto is
unaffected by this.
The difference is there is one thing that can impact a mailto: that
does *not* impact a form. Thats the configuration of a email-client on
the client. Thats *two* pieces of software needed where a form only
needs one. You keep missing/ignoring that important difference.
No I have acknowledged it many times. I just happen to believe that most
people who use a browser also use an email client. I've heard tales that
email is more frequently used than the web - not sure if I believe that.
While I do know people who *also* use web based email solutions, I don't
know of a single person who relies solely on web based email. IOW,
they've all got an email client and it's configured.
Yes, he even listed them. As there is no need to save the emails on
the server, thats a non-issue. If the server is set up properly to
handle it, then the email is not "saved", it is forwarded (emailed)
to an inbox.


And in the meantime it hangs out in mqueue and often has other
people's mbox's on them that tend to grow without bound.


That same limitation applies to mailto:, so its another dead horse you
are beating.


Different issue. I was just pointing out that email servers can suffer
from lack of disk space too - just like web servers. So it's no dead
horse as you state rather it's just acknowledging that yes both methods
can fail.
Whereas it becomes part of the normal email system. The difference
(which you refuse to admit) is the reliablity of the mechanism used
to get the information into the email system.


All I'm saying is that failures can happen in both methods and
neither is 100%.


I have never said either is 100%. I said mailto: will fail more often
than a form will


That's your opinion. My opinion is that I've had far more failures with
web based forms than mailto.
Obviously. Again, what's your point? I'm assuming that the person
can indeed send email. You're assuming the person can indeed browse.

And one method is more reliable than the other. You just refuse to
"open your mind" (your own words) and realize it.


I haven't seen any data to support that point. I've had far more
failures with web sites and their email forms than I've ever had with
my email client. YMMV, however, mine hasn't!


Now you want data.


Yes damn I'm so picky!
Geez. OK, here's you some data. AOL membership is currently
approximately 40 million users. The web-user base is estimated at 200
million. That puts AOL users at about 20% of the market.
That proves nothing except for market share. How's that relevant?
The mailto: example given on the MSDN site, that I posted here, does
*not* work in the AOL software.
Didn't see your example. Is that just an <a
href="mailto:emailaddress">click here</a> style of mailto link? I'm
shocked that such a thing doesn't work for AOL users!
Thats ~20% of users that can not communicate with you because of the
mailto: link used. Your turn. Show some data on browsers that do not
support forms and submission. I genuinely want to see that data.
I cannot tell which browsers people are using. However I admit that not
supporting forms is a weak excuse, only for those way to pig headed to
insist on using such ancient software. What I'm talking about are
various web sites that fail for one reason or another, often an IE only
priopriatary thing or an SQL database not responding to a form that
wants to put up a drop down or an email form that is buried so deep that
it's virtually unfindable. Granted putting a mailto link on such an
unfindable page is just at bad. What I'm saying is that I've had more
problems with form based web mail systems than I've ever had with a
simple mailto link. Granted, I understand the utility of a form and the
process of gathering up useful information through forms before sending
and email. But often a simple mailto link is way better because my
problem, question or whatever does not fit into their silly little form!
> There are no limitations imposed by facilitating reliable
> communication.

Sure there is! Open up your mind a little bit!

Ummm, what limitations are imposed by facilitating reliable
communication?


His assumption is that it's 100% reliable and that's not true.


I personally disagree with the "100%" reliable.


Great! So do I.
Nothing is 100% reliable, simply because of the way that the web
works. What I *will* say is that, until proven otherwise, pure common
sense says that forms are more reliable than mailto:. Of course, you
are welcome to attempt to prove me wrong by naming some browsers, less
than 10 years old, that do not support forms.


Again, I've never, repeat never, has a problem with a mailto link (OK
maybe a temporary problem with the email server soon corrected and email
sent). I've had many problems with form based email including, and not
limited to, just crappy design, limitations of what the web developer
decided to implement in the way of functionality, hiding of responsible
people's email address thus limiting communications, failure of forms in
talking with back ends, failure of forms to support standards thus
making them unreachable, pure crappy design or layout where the user
gives up before finding the magic form, etc, etc.

As I said, give me a mailto link if for nothing else but in addition to
the form!

As I said, YMMV but my "milage" and experience does not vary from what
I've experienced. Sorry if that's a tough nut to swallow.

--
For my birthday I got a humidifier and a de-humidifier...I put them in
the same room and let them fight it out...

Jul 23 '05 #79
In article <3a***************************@msgid.meganewsserve rs.com>,
An****@DeFaria.com enlightened us with...

No I have acknowledged it many times. I just happen to believe that most
people who use a browser also use an email client.


I think *most* overstates it.

Out of all the people in my family who go online (6), I am the ONLY ONE with
a default e-mail client. I am the ONLY ONE who uses Outlook. I've been trying
to get my parents to use it, but they prefer the web-based mail. Gods know
why.

People who use the following as their primary mail will not appreciate mailto
links, either, since even though they may have a default mail client, they
probably don't use it:
yahoo
hotmail
gmail
anyone who has internet based ISP mail (we use comcast and AT&T)

People at internet cafes, libraries, and schools will also hate you. ;)

You are bound to interpret the world from what you see around you. Have you
ever polled people to see if they use a default client? People who aren't
major computer users who frequent Usenet?

--
--
~kaeli~
If a book about failures doesn't sell, is it a success?
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 23 '05 #80
kaeli wrote:
In article <3a***************************@msgid.meganewsserve rs.com>,
An****@DeFaria.com enlightened us with...
No I have acknowledged it many times. I just happen to believe that
most people who use a browser also use an email client.
I think *most* overstates it.


Yes we can get into a disagreement about the degree and size of each
population.
Out of all the people in my family who go online (6), I am the ONLY
ONE with a default e-mail client.
Let me guess, you're also probably the only one who really knows how to
use a computer.
I am the ONLY ONE who uses Outlook.
My sincerest condolences! ;-)
I've been trying to get my parents to use it, but they prefer the
web-based mail. Gods know why.
Exactly, god knows why.
People who use the following as their primary mail will not appreciate
mailto links, either, since even though they may have a default mail
client, they probably don't use it:
yahoo
hotmail
gmail
anyone who has internet based ISP mail (we use comcast and AT&T)
IOW web based email. Yes I know this, been saying it all along actually.
Again we just disagree as to the extend of each population.
People at internet cafes, libraries, and schools will also hate you. ;)
That's their perogative.
You are bound to interpret the world from what you see around you.
As has you here.
Have you ever polled people to see if they use a default client?
People who aren't major computer users who frequent Usenet?


Most of the people I know use some sort of email client. Some have
gotten into web based email clients too like you mention above. Still
most of them know how to, have installed and configured some sort of
default email client.

--
Go ahead and take risks....just be sure that everything will turn out OK.

Jul 23 '05 #81
In article <8d**************************@msgid.meganewsserver s.com>,
An****@DeFaria.com enlightened us with...
Out of all the people in my family who go online (6), I am the ONLY
ONE with a default e-mail client.
Let me guess, you're also probably the only one who really knows how to
use a computer.


Yup.
They all know just enough to be dangerous. ;)
I am the ONLY ONE who uses Outlook.


My sincerest condolences! ;-)


LOL
Hey, _I_ like it. But I also know how to turn off scripting, run in safe
security zone, and all that jazz. I've never had any problems with it.
I also have a good anti-virus program. *heh*
Have you ever polled people to see if they use a default client?
People who aren't major computer users who frequent Usenet?


Most of the people I know use some sort of email client. Some have
gotten into web based email clients too like you mention above. Still
most of them know how to, have installed and configured some sort of
default email client.


I meant the people who actually use whatever site this thread originally was
talking about, if any. I didn't read the whole thing. I'm not gonna. *g*

I mean, if 95% of my users had a default mail client, I'd feel fine using
mailto. I use it here at work. Everyone here has, and uses, Outlook.
But if you don't know who uses your stuff, you really can't generalize about
them much at all. You have to guess, based on what kind of site it is and
stuff.

My only point was that you really can't say who uses what out there and that
mailto makes an assumption many of us don't like to make - the existence of a
default mail client (that they actually use) on the user's computer.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled mailto vs. forms debate.

--
--
~kaeli~
Shotgun wedding: A case of wife or death.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 23 '05 #82
JRS: In article <4b**************************@msgid.meganewsserver s.com
, dated Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:06:51, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Andrew DeFaria <An****@DeFaria.com> posted : Dr John Stockton wrote:
JRS: In article <
d2**************************@msgid.meganewsservers .com
, dated Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:38:03, seen in
news:comp.lang.javascript, Andrew DeFaria <An****@DeFaria.com> posted :
One out of every three Americans is suffering from some form
of mental illness. Think of two of your best friends. If they
are OK, then it must be you.

Yet more false logic. 95% of the world population does not
directly have that problem - though it may well question the
accuracy of "One out of every three".

A couple of points there doc:
1. It's a tagline! Intended to be funny!


Failure.
2. Explaining or analyzing jokes just proves that you didn't "get
it".
3. It did say Americans did it not?
It did.
4. America is not 95% of the world population!
It is not; it is approximately 5%. Now read what you wrote with
intelligence and thoughtfulness. If the first sentence is assumed to be
true, then the second and third considered jointly follow logically only
if the people that you are addressing, and their best friends, are
Americans. But the majority of the readers of this newsgroup are non-
Americans, and the same will generally be true of their best friends.

You illustrate thereby a typical American attitude; one which needs to
be remedied if your country is not to continue to lose what friends it
still has.
5. If you have further questions see #1
Geeze...


--
John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ??*@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.

In MS OE, choose Tools, Options, Send; select Plain Text for News and E-mail.
Jul 23 '05 #83
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Randy Webb wrote:
OK, here's your chance. Name a browser that does not support forms
that is less than 10 years old. Otherwise, you are beating a dead horse.

According to http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto....jsp?number=1:

In April of 1995 Netscape 1.1 was released. The new browser added
table support as well as many of its own new HTML elements and
attributes. By the middle of that year most WWW users on the
Internet were using Netscape's browser.

I don't believe it had form support back then.


I don't believe it had support for mailto: either. But its irrelevant.
When you have to go back 9 1/2 years to find a browser that doesn't
support forms and I only have to go back 1 day to find a browser that
doesn't handle mailto: properly, I will stick with the form.
You are also assuming that I make my forms/navigation browser
dependent when I don't.

You do but many others don't.


That doesn't break the form nor navigation aspects. Its the
implementation of a stupid/ignorant web author that breaks it. Not the
basic functionality of it.
I probably test in more browsers than most people even know exist.

That's you - not everybody.


As many IE-only sites as I encounter, I agree 100%.

<--snip-->
Again, the web server can be on host A and have filled disks whereas
the mail server can be on host B and have tons of space.

And the vice versa is true. Thats another case of you beating a dead
horse.

Not at all. They both have problems ergo neither are 100% reliable.


I have never said either was 100%. I said the form was *more* reliable
than a mailto:
Anything that can impact a form can also impact the reliability of a
mailto:.

Not true. A form could, for example, want you to fill out a drop down
and get the entries for a drop down from a database. The database can be
experiencing a problem thus the form fails. Whereas a mailto is
unaffected by this.


Thats not the form itself breaking. Thats the moronic/ignorant web
author making it dependent on something that may or may not be
available. It still doesn't change the reliability of the form itself.
The difference is there is one thing that can impact a mailto: that
does *not* impact a form. Thats the configuration of a email-client on
the client. Thats *two* pieces of software needed where a form only
needs one. You keep missing/ignoring that important difference.

No I have acknowledged it many times. I just happen to believe that most
people who use a browser also use an email client. I've heard tales that
email is more frequently used than the web - not sure if I believe that.
While I do know people who *also* use web based email solutions, I don't
know of a single person who relies solely on web based email. IOW,
they've all got an email client and it's configured.


Well, you can stop saying you don't know of a single person who relies
solely on web based email. I am one of them in one scenario, not one in
another. When I am at work, it is 100% web-based. And for my personal
primary email address, it is web-based as well. And it simply can *not*
be set up with an email client.
<--snip-->
That's your opinion. My opinion is that I've had far more failures with
web based forms than mailto.
And based on your personal experience, you say that mailto: is reliable.
But based on *my* personal experience, mailto: breaks more often.

<--snip-->
Geez. OK, here's you some data. AOL membership is currently
approximately 40 million users. The web-user base is estimated at 200
million. That puts AOL users at about 20% of the market.

That proves nothing except for market share. How's that relevant?


As long as you quote it out of context, nothing. Quoted in its original
context, which was a precursor to my next statement, it shows that ~20%
of the people on the web can not use that mailto: link.
The mailto: example given on the MSDN site, that I posted here, does
*not* work in the AOL software.

Didn't see your example. Is that just an <a
href="mailto:emailaddress">click here</a> style of mailto link? I'm
shocked that such a thing doesn't work for AOL users!


No, the code that I posted can be viewed here:

<URL:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ned/mailto.asp
/>

But are you saying you have problems with this form:

<form action="emailIt.php">
<input type="text" name="emailAddress" size="80">
<input type="text" name="subjectLine" size="80">
<textarea rows="80" cols="200"></textarea>
<input type="submit" value="Send Email">
</form>

If so, you need a new browser.
Thats ~20% of users that can not communicate with you because of the
mailto: link used. Your turn. Show some data on browsers that do not
support forms and submission. I genuinely want to see that data.

I cannot tell which browsers people are using.


Nor can you tell which email client they have installed nor how it will
react to a mailto: that contains more than an email address. And that
seems to be the predominate use that I have seen of them is when the
page author attempts to fill out the from, to, subject and body of the
email.
The best solution, that has been posted at least twice, is to offer
both. But in the event I only offer one, it will always be a form until
something happens to change my mind.

<--snip-->
As I said, YMMV but my "milage" and experience does not vary from what
I've experienced. Sorry if that's a tough nut to swallow.


Not a tough nut to swallow. I have no problems with the fact that you
have never had trouble (maybe minor ones). But when you claim that based
on your experience that a form is less reliable than mailto then it gets
beyond a nut to swallow. Not when the majority of
articles/posts/webpages I have read on them speak directly to the
unreliability of the mailto: based simply on the fact that you have no
way of knowing how, even if it will, react to the mailto: the way you
think it will.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq
Jul 23 '05 #84
kaeli wrote:
I am the ONLY ONE who uses Outlook.
My sincerest condolences! ;-)


LOL
Hey, _I_ like it. But I also know how to turn off scripting, run in
safe security zone, and all that jazz. I've never had any problems
with it.I also have a good anti-virus program. *heh*


Well then my condolences that you actually like it! :-)

But it does speak volumes that you have to go through all of that just
to protect yourself. Me, I use Netscape/Mozilla/Thunderbird. Have for
years. Never use an AV program. Never had to. Never got a virus. And no,
I'm not just lucky.
Have you ever polled people to see if they use a default client?
People who aren't major computer users who frequent Usenet?


Most of the people I know use some sort of email client. Some have
gotten into web based email clients too like you mention above. Still
most of them know how to, have installed and configured some sort of
default email client.


I meant the people who actually use whatever site this thread
originally was talking about, if any. I didn't read the whole thing.
I'm not gonna. *g*


Well I didn't. I was speaking in the more general sense.
I mean, if 95% of my users had a default mail client, I'd feel fine
using mailto. I use it here at work. Everyone here has, and uses, Outlook.
More condolences are in order... ;-)
But if you don't know who uses your stuff, you really can't generalize
about them much at all. You have to guess, based on what kind of site
it is and stuff.

My only point was that you really can't say who uses what out there
and that mailto makes an assumption many of us don't like to make -
the existence of a default mail client (that they actually use) on the
user's computer.


Again, the solution is simple - provide both. A mailto link is but a few
characters to code.
--
Back off man. I'm a scientist.
Jul 23 '05 #85

"Andrew DeFaria" <An****@DeFaria.com> wrote in message
news:63**************************@msgid.meganewsse rvers.com...
kaeli wrote:
But it does speak volumes that you have to go through all of that just
to protect yourself. Me, I use Netscape/Mozilla/Thunderbird. Have for
years. Never use an AV program. Never had to. Never got a virus. And no,
I'm not just lucky.

Don't forget to get the latest updates to those programs... There was about
4 bugs just released about them...

Mike
Jul 23 '05 #86
Michael wrote:
"Andrew DeFaria" <An****@DeFaria.com> wrote in message
news:63**************************@msgid.meganewsse rvers.com...
kaeli wrote:
But it does speak volumes that you have to go through all of that
just to protect yourself. Me, I use Netscape/Mozilla/Thunderbird.
Have for years. Never use an AV program. Never had to. Never got a
virus. And no, I'm not just lucky.


Don't forget to get the latest updates to those programs... There was
about 4 bugs just released about them...


Thanks for your concern however I do keep up with the latest (which you
would have known if you had checked the headers). And 4 bugs do not
translate to 4 gaping security holes. Many security type advisements are
about what might possibly be possible for an extremely talented hacker
and often are not ever exploited. Just because a buffer overrun is
possible does not mean that it is at all easy to then "take over"
another person's computer - more just that the possibility is there.
--
Hang up and drive.

Jul 23 '05 #87
Dr John Stockton wrote:
JRS: In article <4b**************************@msgid.meganewsserver s.com
, dated Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:06:51, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript,
Andrew DeFaria <An****@DeFaria.com> posted :
Dr John Stockton wrote:
JRS: In article <
d2**************************@msgid.meganewsservers .com

, dated Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:38:03, seen in
news:comp.lang.javascript,

Andrew DeFaria <An****@DeFaria.com> posted :

One out of every three Americans is suffering from some form of
mental illness. Think of two of your best friends. If they are OK,
then it must be you.

Yet more false logic. 95% of the world population does not directly
have that problem - though it may well question the accuracy of "One
out of every three".


A couple of points there doc:
1. It's a tagline! Intended to be funny!


Failure.


I can't help it if *you* don't have a sense of humor!
2. Explaining or analyzing jokes just proves that you didn't "get it".
3. It did say Americans did it not?


It did.
4. America is not 95% of the world population!


It is not; it is approximately 5%. Now read what you wrote with
intelligence and thoughtfulness.


As you say doc, "failure". You assumed I wrote it. I did not.
If the first sentence is assumed to be true, then the second and third
considered jointly follow logically only if the people that you are
addressing, and their best friends, are Americans. But the majority of
the readers of this newsgroup are non-Americans, and the same will
generally be true of their best friends.
There ya go again, analyzing... Do us all a favor doc and go out and get
a sense of humor!
You illustrate thereby a typical American attitude;
And why would you assume otherwise considering I'm an American....
one which needs to be remedied if your country is not to continue to
lose what friends it still has.


With friends like you... Well you know the rest! Let's just say that my
friends have a sense of humor.
5. If you have further questions see #1
Geeze...

Hey doc, lay off those books and get a life! (Again, geeze!)

--
All wiyht. Rho sritched mg kegtops awound?

Jul 23 '05 #88
Randy Webb wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Randy Webb wrote:
OK, here's your chance. Name a browser that does not support forms
that is less than 10 years old. Otherwise, you are beating a dead
horse.
According to http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto....jsp?number=1:

In April of 1995 Netscape 1.1 was released. The new browser added
table support as well as many of its own new HTML elements and
attributes. By the middle of that year most WWW users on the
Internet were using Netscape's browser.

I don't believe it had form support back then.


I don't believe it had support for mailto: either. But its irrelevant.
When you have to go back 9 1/2 years to find a browser that doesn't
support forms and I only have to go back 1 day to find a browser that
doesn't handle mailto: properly, I will stick with the form.


You asked me to name a browser. I did. Geeze!
You are also assuming that I make my forms/navigation browser
dependent when I don't.


You do but many others don't.


That doesn't break the form nor navigation aspects.


Really? How doesn't it? If a user of a browser cannot navigate to the
form then it's broken (at least for that user).
Its the implementation of a stupid/ignorant web author that breaks it.
Not the basic functionality of it.
Basic functionality meaning "It don't work" is indeed broken.
I probably test in more browsers than most people even know exist.


That's you - not everybody.


As many IE-only sites as I encounter, I agree 100%.


Good. Agreement.
<--snip-->
Again, the web server can be on host A and have filled disks
whereas the mail server can be on host B and have tons of space.

And the vice versa is true. Thats another case of you beating a dead
horse.
Not at all. They both have problems ergo neither are 100% reliable.


I have never said either was 100%. I said the form was *more* reliable
than a mailto:


Then it would get down to a numbers game. BTW at work today a guy
approached me and relayed the fact that he can no longer get to his web
based email. Seems the company has implemented filtering such that such
web based email clients are no longer working.
Anything that can impact a form can also impact the reliability of a
mailto:.


Not true. A form could, for example, want you to fill out a drop down
and get the entries for a drop down from a database. The database can
be experiencing a problem thus the form fails. Whereas a mailto is
unaffected by this.


Thats not the form itself breaking.


Huh? It's part of the form! It doesn't work and instead of allowing the
user to continue the user cannot send any email whatsoever. How is this
not a broken form?
Thats the moronic/ignorant web author making it dependent on something
that may or may not be available. It still doesn't change the
reliability of the form itself.
Not true. The form doesn't work - it doesn't even display. The user
cannot use it. Communication is halted. What else do you need to admit
that it failed?
The difference is there is one thing that can impact a mailto: that
does *not* impact a form. Thats the configuration of a email-client
on the client. Thats *two* pieces of software needed where a form
only needs one. You keep missing/ignoring that important difference.


No I have acknowledged it many times. I just happen to believe that
most people who use a browser also use an email client. I've heard
tales that email is more frequently used than the web - not sure if I
believe that. While I do know people who *also* use web based email
solutions, I don't know of a single person who relies solely on web
based email. IOW, they've all got an email client and it's configured.


Well, you can stop saying you don't know of a single person who relies
solely on web based email. I am one of them in one scenario, not one
in another.


Yeah but I don't really know you! ;-)
When I am at work, it is 100% web-based. And for my personal primary
email address, it is web-based as well. And it simply can *not* be set
up with an email client.
Sorry to hear that. Perhaps you should get a better email provider! If
you were to work here chances are you'd be totally emailless!
That's your opinion. My opinion is that I've had far more failures
with web based forms than mailto.


And based on your personal experience, you say that mailto: is
reliable. But based on *my* personal experience, mailto: breaks more
often.


So then we should simply agree to disagree.
Geez. OK, here's you some data. AOL membership is currently
approximately 40 million users. The web-user base is estimated at
200 million. That puts AOL users at about 20% of the market.


That proves nothing except for market share. How's that relevant?


As long as you quote it out of context, nothing. Quoted in its
original context, which was a precursor to my next statement, it shows
that ~20% of the people on the web can not use that mailto: link.
The mailto: example given on the MSDN site, that I posted here, does
*not* work in the AOL software.


Didn't see your example. Is that just an <a
href="mailto:emailaddress">click here</a> style of mailto link? I'm
shocked that such a thing doesn't work for AOL users!


No, the code that I posted can be viewed here:

<URL:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ned/mailto.asp
/>

But are you saying you have problems with this form:


Did I? I don't recall saying that I have problem with this form. I'm not
talking about a <form action="mailto">. That's not a link anyway really.
I'm talking about a simple <a href="mailto:emailaddress> style.
<form action="emailIt.php">
<input type="text" name="emailAddress" size="80">
<input type="text" name="subjectLine" size="80">
<textarea rows="80" cols="200"></textarea>
<input type="submit" value="Send Email">
</form>

If so, you need a new browser.
Really? Why? I'm confused about what you are talking about here!
Thats ~20% of users that can not communicate with you because of the
mailto: link used. Your turn. Show some data on browsers that do not
support forms and submission. I genuinely want to see that data.


I cannot tell which browsers people are using.


Nor can you tell which email client they have installed nor how it
will react to a mailto: that contains more than an email address.


Did I say it contains more than an email address?
And that seems to be the predominate use that I have seen of them is
when the page author attempts to fill out the from, to, subject and
body of the email.


Quite frankly this is the first time I've ever seen such a thing!
As I said, YMMV but my "milage" and experience does not vary from
what I've experienced. Sorry if that's a tough nut to swallow.


Not a tough nut to swallow. I have no problems with the fact that you
have never had trouble (maybe minor ones). But when you claim that
based on your experience that a form is less reliable than mailto then
it gets beyond a nut to swallow. Not when the majority of
articles/posts/webpages I have read on them speak directly to the
unreliability of the mailto: based simply on the fact that you have no
way of knowing how, even if it will, react to the mailto: the way you
think it will.


As I said, we should agree to disagree.

--
(A)bort, (R)etry, (G)et a beer?
Jul 23 '05 #89

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.