Email Script

[Andrew Thompson]

Re: Email Script

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 10:28:39 GMT, Michael Winter wrote:
[color=blue]
> My ISP provides two News servers - one is for binaries, the other is for
> text. Guess which one I use.[/color]

Do I get a ( attach \ \ ments ) T-shirt if I get it right?

...that above is intended to be one of those 'red circle
with a diagonal line crossing out word' thingy symbols,
...what is it? Oh, yeah ..NOT.

Or mebe that should be a plain ol' ( detachments ) ;-)

[Michael Winter]

[OT] Re: Email Script

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 12:30:27 GMT, Andrew Thompson <SeeMySites@www .invalid>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 10:28:39 GMT, Michael Winter wrote:
>[color=green]
>> My ISP provides two News servers - one is for binaries, the other is
>> for text. Guess which one I use.[/color]
>
> Do I get a ( attach \ \ ments ) T-shirt if I get it right?[/color]

Hehe :P

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

[Andrew DeFaria]

Re: Email Script

Michael Winter wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:55:29 -0700, Andrew DeFaria
> <Andrew@DeFaria .com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Randy Webb wrote:[/color]
>
> [snip]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> You are confusing the user with the "owner" of the browser. Go in
>>> an Internet Cafe, click a mailto:, who owns the computer/browser?[/color]
>>
>>
>> I'd believe the owner would be the Internet Cafe owner, no? I would
>> suspect that the email client would pop up, probably incorrectly
>> configured. Configure it![/color]
>
> And how do you propose that that is done? Create an account for every
> single person that uses the service? Not likely.[/color]

Did I suggest that the internet cafe owner configure it? No. I was at an
internet cafe once in a foreign land. You're right, it came up not
configured for me (I didn't necessarily click a mailto link though).
What did I do? (Horrors). I configured it for myself and sent my email.
No big deal!
[color=blue]
> Either you are unable to understand the intrinsic unreliability of
> the mailto: protocol, or you are simply unwilling. Either way, stop
> wasting our time. Do you have nothing better to do than troll this
> group?[/color]

I'm not trolling - I'm simply expressing my opinion on this - just like
you. Sorry you seem to have so much of a problem with that!
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Can you quote that "standard"?[/color]
>>
>> Sure: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2368.html[/color]
>
> That's an RFC, not a standard. If you actually did as instructed and
> read STD 1 (currently RFC 3700, I believe), you would see that RFC
> 2368 is nothing more than a proposed standard; the first stage of
> standardisation . The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) do
> not recommend that proposed standards are implemented as they may
> change before reaching maturity.[/color]

There are many RFC's that do not reach maturity and yet are referred to
as standards. The good thing about standards are that there are so many
to choose from!
--
Some people say "life is short". What?? Life is the longest damn thing
anyone ever does!! What can you do that's longer?

[Andrew DeFaria]

Re: Email Script

Michael Winter wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:45:55 -0700, Andrew DeFaria
> <Andrew@DeFaria .com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Dr John Stockton wrote:[/color]
>
> [snip]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Don't post HTML or multipart - see FAQ 2.3.[/color]
>>
>> Ah, no. End of discussion.[/color]
>
> Umm, yes. This is a text-only newsgroup.[/color]

Ah, no. Like I said - end of discussion. If you wish to discuss this
issue then you can discuss it amongst yourselves. I have no interest in
debating this with you
--
I went to a general store, but they wouldn't let me buy anything specific.

[Michael Winter]

Re: Email Script

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 09:13:59 -0700, Andrew DeFaria <Andrew@DeFaria .com>
wrote:

[snip]
[color=blue]
> Did I suggest that the internet cafe owner configure it? No. I was at an
> internet cafe once in a foreign land. You're right, it came up not
> configured for me (I didn't necessarily click a mailto link though).
> What did I do? (Horrors). I configured it for myself and sent my email.
> No big deal![/color]

And if customers in other places aren't given permission to do that? This
isn't about what you can do. This is about the reliability of a protocol
that obviously fails in some situations where it is beyond the user's
ability to correct.

[MW:][color=blue][color=green]
>> Either you are unable to understand the intrinsic unreliability of the
>> mailto: protocol, or you are simply unwilling. Either way, stop wasting
>> our time. Do you have nothing better to do than troll this group?[/color]
>
> I'm not trolling - I'm simply expressing my opinion on this - just like
> you. Sorry you seem to have so much of a problem with that![/color]

The problem that I have is that you're missing the point, seemingly on
purpose. The argument as presented is that mailto: is not reliable on all
configurations. Therefore, as the only form of feedback on websites, or
other similar uses, it is not appropriate.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that form mail should only ever be
used in such situations, that is a mailto: link can be provided, but as
form mail is more reliable it should be the first choice. As free public
services are provided, there is no reason why this cannot be the case.

At one point in a different thread, you seemed to be under the impression
that we're talking about an e-mail conversation, in which form mail is
obviously unsuitable. However, no-one else is approaching it from that
position. It is this deviation from what seems a straight-forward subject
that I object to.

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

[Andrew DeFaria]

Re: Email Script

Michael Winter wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Did I suggest that the internet cafe owner configure it? No. I was at
>> an internet cafe once in a foreign land. You're right, it came up
>> not configured for me (I didn't necessarily click a mailto link
>> though). What did I do? (Horrors). I configured it for myself and
>> sent my email. No big deal![/color]
>
> And if customers in other places aren't given permission to do that?[/color]

Find a better Internet Cafe! ;-)
[color=blue]
> The problem that I have is that you're missing the point, seemingly
> on purpose. The argument as presented is that mailto: is not reliable
> on all configurations. Therefore, as the only form of feedback on
> websites, or other similar uses, it is not appropriate.
>
> I don't think that anyone is suggesting that form mail should only
> ever be used in such situations, that is a mailto: link can be
> provided, but as form mail is more reliable it should be the first
> choice. As free public services are provided, there is no reason why
> this cannot be the case.[/color]

I'd be happy if there were always an mailto link as an alternative.
Companies hide behind email forms, force fitting you into little
categories and additional hassles when the purpose of your communication
quite simply just does not fit the form. Often they never respond to
your email anyway (and regardless if mailto is more or less reliable
than web form based email, communication is a two way street and if they
don't respond then even web based form email is as "reliable" as a mis
configured client and a mailto tag!) Additionally form mail is extremely
limited and often cumbersome to use. And it's not like I have not had
many times when form mail simple does not work - anything from server
errors to browser errors to whatever.
[color=blue]
> At one point in a different thread, you seemed to be under the
> impression that we're talking about an e-mail conversation, in which
> form mail is obviously unsuitable. However, no-one else is
> approaching it from that position. It is this deviation from what
> seems a straight-forward subject that I object to.[/color]

I've only ever said that mailto links were good for email conversations!
Obviously mailto links are not designed to be used in web form data
gathering application.

--
5 days a week my body is a temple. The other two, it's an amusement park.