Determine user's default email client

[kaeli]

Re: Determine user's default email client

In article <PP4PfwClTmbBFw mq@merlyn.demon .co.uk>, spam@merlyn.dem on.co.uk
enlightened us with...[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> >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.[/color]
>
> 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".
>
>[/color]

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

--
--
~kaeli~
Frisbeetarianis m (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

[Andrew DeFaria]

Re: Determine user's default email client

kaeli wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <PP4PfwClTmbBFw mq@merlyn.demon .co.uk>, spam@merlyn.dem on.co.uk
> enlightened us with...
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> 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.[/color]
>>
>> 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".[/color]
>
> Who stole your sense of humor? You really ought to try to get it back.[/color]

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.

[Randy Webb]

Re: Determine user's default email client

Andrew DeFaria wrote:[color=blue]
> Randy Webb wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> 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![/color]
>>
>>
>> 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.[/color]
>
>
> Likewise you are hoping that the browser can indeed navigate your site
> and support forms.[/color]

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.

[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> As you have a list of conditions under which a form based email will
>>> fail where a mailto will succeed. What's your point?[/color]
>>
>>
>> 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".[/color]
>
>
> 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.[/color]

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.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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.[/color]
>
>
> 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.[/color]

That same limitation applies to mailto:, so its another dead horse you
are beating.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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.[/color]
>
>
> All I'm saying is that failures can happen in both methods and neither
> is 100%.[/color]

I have never said either is 100%. I said mailto: will fail more often
than a form will.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Obviously. Again, what's your point? I'm assuming that the person can
>>> indeed send email. You're assuming the person can indeed browse.[/color]
>>
>>
>> And one method is more reliable than the other. You just refuse to
>> "open your mind" (your own words) and realize it.[/color]
>
> 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![/color]

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.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> There are no limitations imposed by facilitating reliable
>>>> communication.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure there is! Open up your mind a little bit![/color]
>>
>>
>> Ummm, what limitations are imposed by facilitating reliable
>> communication?[/color]
>
>
> His assumption is that it's 100% reliable and that's not true.[/color]

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.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq

[Andrew DeFaria]

Re: Determine user's default email client

Randy Webb wrote:
[color=blue]
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Randy Webb wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>> 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.[/color]
>>
>> Likewise you are hoping that the browser can indeed navigate your
>> site and support forms.[/color]
>
> 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.[/color]

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.
[color=blue]
> You are also assuming that I make my forms/navigation browser
> dependent when I don't.[/color]

You do but many others don't.
[color=blue]
> I probably test in more browsers than most people even know exist.[/color]

That's you - not everybody.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> 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".[/color]
>>
>> 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.[/color]
>
> And the vice versa is true. Thats another case of you beating a dead
> horse.[/color]

Not at all. They both have problems ergo neither are 100% reliable.
[color=blue]
> Anything that can impact a form can also impact the reliability of a
> mailto:.[/color]

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.
[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> 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.[/color]
>>
>> 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.[/color]
>
> That same limitation applies to mailto:, so its another dead horse you
> are beating.[/color]

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.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> 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.[/color]
>>
>> All I'm saying is that failures can happen in both methods and
>> neither is 100%.[/color]
>
> I have never said either is 100%. I said mailto: will fail more often
> than a form will[/color]

That's your opinion. My opinion is that I've had far more failures with
web based forms than mailto.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> 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.[/color]
>>
>> 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![/color]
>
> Now you want data.[/color]

Yes damn I'm so picky!
[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

That proves nothing except for market share. How's that relevant?
[color=blue]
> The mailto: example given on the MSDN site, that I posted here, does
> *not* work in the AOL software.[/color]

Didn't see your example. Is that just an <a
href="mailto:em ailaddress">cli ck here</a> style of mailto link? I'm
shocked that such a thing doesn't work for AOL users!
[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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!
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>> 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?[/color]
>>
>> His assumption is that it's 100% reliable and that's not true.[/color]
>
> I personally disagree with the "100%" reliable.[/color]

Great! So do I.
[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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...

[kaeli]

Re: Determine user's default email client

In article <3a99c$416f4de9 $43661972$26157 @msgid.meganews servers.com>,
Andrew@DeFaria. com enlightened us with...[color=blue]
>
> No I have acknowledged it many times. I just happen to believe that most
> people who use a browser also use an email client.[/color]

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

[Andrew DeFaria]

Re: Determine user's default email client

kaeli wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <3a99c$416f4de9 $43661972$26157 @msgid.meganews servers.com>,
> Andrew@DeFaria. com enlightened us with...
>[color=green]
>> No I have acknowledged it many times. I just happen to believe that
>> most people who use a browser also use an email client.[/color]
>
> I think *most* overstates it.[/color]

Yes we can get into a disagreement about the degree and size of each
population.
[color=blue]
> Out of all the people in my family who go online (6), I am the ONLY
> ONE with a default e-mail client.[/color]

Let me guess, you're also probably the only one who really knows how to
use a computer.
[color=blue]
> I am the ONLY ONE who uses Outlook.[/color]

My sincerest condolences! ;-)
[color=blue]
> I've been trying to get my parents to use it, but they prefer the
> web-based mail. Gods know why.[/color]

Exactly, god knows why.
[color=blue]
> 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)[/color]

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.
[color=blue]
> People at internet cafes, libraries, and schools will also hate you. ;)[/color]

That's their perogative.
[color=blue]
> You are bound to interpret the world from what you see around you.[/color]

As has you here.
[color=blue]
> Have you ever polled people to see if they use a default client?
> People who aren't major computer users who frequent Usenet?[/color]

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.

[kaeli]

Re: Determine user's default email client

In article <8ddd7$416ff1af $d1964a1e$3252@ msgid.meganewss ervers.com>,
Andrew@DeFaria. com enlightened us with...[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > Out of all the people in my family who go online (6), I am the ONLY
> > ONE with a default e-mail client.[/color]
>
> Let me guess, you're also probably the only one who really knows how to
> use a computer.
>[/color]

Yup.
They all know just enough to be dangerous. ;)
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I am the ONLY ONE who uses Outlook.[/color]
>
> My sincerest condolences! ;-)
>[/color]

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*
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > Have you ever polled people to see if they use a default client?
> > People who aren't major computer users who frequent Usenet?[/color]
>
> 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.[/color]

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

[Dr John Stockton]

Re: Determine user's default email client

JRS: In article <4b4aa$416ee9d5 $c09cfcf$11176@ msgid.meganewss ervers.com[color=blue]
>, dated Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:06:51, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript,[/color]
Andrew DeFaria <Andrew@DeFaria .com> posted :[color=blue]
> Dr John Stockton wrote:[color=green]
>> JRS: In article <
>> d265b$416dd7e6$ c09cfcf$32585@m sgid.meganewsse rvers.com[color=darkred]
>>> , dated Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:38:03, seen in
>>> news:comp.lang. javascript,[/color]
>> Andrew DeFaria <Andrew@DeFaria .com> posted :[color=darkred]
>>> 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.[/color]
>> 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".[/color]
> A couple of points there doc:
> 1. It's a tagline! Intended to be funny![/color]

Failure.
[color=blue]
> 2. Explaining or analyzing jokes just proves that you didn't "get
> it".
> 3. It did say Americans did it not?[/color]

It did.
[color=blue]
> 4. America is not 95% of the world population![/color]

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.
[color=blue]
> 5. If you have further questions see #1
> Geeze...[/color]

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

In MS OE, choose Tools, Options, Send; select Plain Text for News and E-mail.

[Randy Webb]

Re: Determine user's default email client

Andrew DeFaria wrote:[color=blue]
> Randy Webb wrote:[color=green]
>> 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.[/color]
>
>
> 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.[/color]

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.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> You are also assuming that I make my forms/navigation browser
>> dependent when I don't.[/color]
>
>
> You do but many others don't.[/color]

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.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I probably test in more browsers than most people even know exist.[/color]
>
>
> That's you - not everybody.[/color]

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

<--snip-->
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> 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.[/color]
>>
>>
>> And the vice versa is true. Thats another case of you beating a dead
>> horse.[/color]
>
>
> Not at all. They both have problems ergo neither are 100% reliable.[/color]

I have never said either was 100%. I said the form was *more* reliable
than a mailto:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Anything that can impact a form can also impact the reliability of a
>> mailto:.[/color]
>
>
> 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.[/color]

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.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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.[/color]
>
>
> 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.[/color]

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-->
[color=blue]
> That's your opinion. My opinion is that I've had far more failures with
> web based forms than mailto.[/color]

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

<--snip-->
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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.[/color]
>
>
> That proves nothing except for market share. How's that relevant?[/color]

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.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> The mailto: example given on the MSDN site, that I posted here, does
>> *not* work in the AOL software.[/color]
>
>
> Didn't see your example. Is that just an <a
> href="mailto:em ailaddress">cli ck here</a> style of mailto link? I'm
> shocked that such a thing doesn't work for AOL users![/color]

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="emailAddr ess" size="80">
<input type="text" name="subjectLi ne" size="80">
<textarea rows="80" cols="200"></textarea>
<input type="submit" value="Send Email">
</form>

If so, you need a new browser.


[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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.[/color]
>
>
> I cannot tell which browsers people are using.[/color]

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-->
[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq

[Andrew DeFaria]

Re: Determine user's default email client

kaeli wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> I am the ONLY ONE who uses Outlook.[/color]
>>
>> My sincerest condolences! ;-)[/color]
>
> 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*[/color]

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.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Have you ever polled people to see if they use a default client?
>>> People who aren't major computer users who frequent Usenet?[/color]
>>
>> 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.[/color]
>
> 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*[/color]

Well I didn't. I was speaking in the more general sense.
[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

More condolences are in order... ;-)
[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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

[Michael]

Re: Determine user's default email client


"Andrew DeFaria" <Andrew@DeFaria .com> wrote in message
news:637a$41707 e41$43661972$11 728@msgid.megan ewsservers.com. ..[color=blue]
> 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.
>[/color]


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

Mike

[Andrew DeFaria]

Re: Determine user's default email client

Michael wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Andrew DeFaria" <Andrew@DeFaria .com> wrote in message
> news:637a$41707 e41$43661972$11 728@msgid.megan ewsservers.com. ..
>[color=green]
>> 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.[/color]
>
> Don't forget to get the latest updates to those programs... There was
> about 4 bugs just released about them...[/color]

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.

[Andrew DeFaria]

Re: Determine user's default email client

Dr John Stockton wrote:
[color=blue]
> JRS: In article <4b4aa$416ee9d5 $c09cfcf$11176@ msgid.meganewss ervers.com
>[color=green]
>> , dated Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:06:51, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript,[/color]
>
> Andrew DeFaria <Andrew@DeFaria .com> posted :
>[color=green]
>> Dr John Stockton wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> JRS: In article <
>>> d265b$416dd7e6$ c09cfcf$32585@m sgid.meganewsse rvers.com
>>>
>>>> , dated Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:38:03, seen in
>>>> news:comp.lang. javascript,
>>>
>>> Andrew DeFaria <Andrew@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".[/color]
>>
>> A couple of points there doc:
>> 1. It's a tagline! Intended to be funny![/color]
>
> Failure.[/color]

I can't help it if *you* don't have a sense of humor!
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 2. Explaining or analyzing jokes just proves that you didn't "get it".
>> 3. It did say Americans did it not?[/color]
>
> It did.
>[color=green]
>> 4. America is not 95% of the world population![/color]
>
> It is not; it is approximately 5%. Now read what you wrote with
> intelligence and thoughtfulness.[/color]

As you say doc, "failure". You assumed I wrote it. I did not.
[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

There ya go again, analyzing... Do us all a favor doc and go out and get
a sense of humor!
[color=blue]
> You illustrate thereby a typical American attitude;[/color]

And why would you assume otherwise considering I'm an American....
[color=blue]
> one which needs to be remedied if your country is not to continue to
> lose what friends it still has.[/color]

With friends like you... Well you know the rest! Let's just say that my
friends have a sense of humor.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 5. If you have further questions see #1
>> Geeze...[/color]
>[/color]
Hey doc, lay off those books and get a life! (Again, geeze!)

--
All wiyht. Rho sritched mg kegtops awound?

[Andrew DeFaria]

Re: Determine user's default email client

Randy Webb wrote:
[color=blue]
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Randy Webb wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> 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.[/color]
>>
>> 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.[/color]
>
> 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.[/color]

You asked me to name a browser. I did. Geeze!
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> You are also assuming that I make my forms/navigation browser
>>> dependent when I don't.[/color]
>>
>> You do but many others don't.[/color]
>
> That doesn't break the form nor navigation aspects.[/color]

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).
[color=blue]
> Its the implementation of a stupid/ignorant web author that breaks it.
> Not the basic functionality of it.[/color]

Basic functionality meaning "It don't work" is indeed broken.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> I probably test in more browsers than most people even know exist.[/color]
>>
>> That's you - not everybody.[/color]
>
> As many IE-only sites as I encounter, I agree 100%.[/color]

Good. Agreement.
[color=blue]
> <--snip-->
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> 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.[/color]
>>
>> Not at all. They both have problems ergo neither are 100% reliable.[/color]
>
> I have never said either was 100%. I said the form was *more* reliable
> than a mailto:[/color]

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.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Anything that can impact a form can also impact the reliability of a
>>> mailto:.[/color]
>>
>> 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.[/color]
>
> Thats not the form itself breaking.[/color]

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?
[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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?
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> 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.[/color]
>>
>> 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.[/color]
>
> 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.[/color]

Yeah but I don't really know you! ;-)
[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

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!
[color=blue][color=green]
>> That's your opinion. My opinion is that I've had far more failures
>> with web based forms than mailto.[/color]
>
> And based on your personal experience, you say that mailto: is
> reliable. But based on *my* personal experience, mailto: breaks more
> often.[/color]

So then we should simply agree to disagree.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> 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.[/color]
>>
>> That proves nothing except for market share. How's that relevant?[/color]
>
> 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.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> The mailto: example given on the MSDN site, that I posted here, does
>>> *not* work in the AOL software.[/color]
>>
>> Didn't see your example. Is that just an <a
>> href="mailto:em ailaddress">cli ck here</a> style of mailto link? I'm
>> shocked that such a thing doesn't work for AOL users![/color]
>
> 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:[/color]

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:em ailaddress> style.
[color=blue]
> <form action="emailIt .php">
> <input type="text" name="emailAddr ess" size="80">
> <input type="text" name="subjectLi ne" size="80">
> <textarea rows="80" cols="200"></textarea>
> <input type="submit" value="Send Email">
> </form>
>
> If so, you need a new browser.[/color]

Really? Why? I'm confused about what you are talking about here!
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> 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.[/color]
>>
>> I cannot tell which browsers people are using.[/color]
>
> 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.[/color]

Did I say it contains more than an email address?
[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

Quite frankly this is the first time I've ever seen such a thing!
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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.[/color]
>
> 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.[/color]

As I said, we should agree to disagree.

--
(A)bort, (R)etry, (G)et a beer?