Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #9922 > unrolled thread

html contact email

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php

Contents

  html contact email jans <janis.rough@gmail.com> - 2013-06-28 12:16 -0700
    Re: html contact email Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-06-28 15:31 -0400
    Re: html contact email "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2013-06-28 14:28 -0500
    Re: html contact email jans <janis.rough@gmail.com> - 2013-06-28 13:39 -0700
      Re: html contact email Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-06-28 22:50 +0200
        Re: html contact email jans <janis.rough@gmail.com> - 2013-06-28 13:51 -0700
          Re: html contact email Doug Miller <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> - 2013-06-28 21:11 +0000
            Re: html contact email Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-06-28 17:21 -0400
              OT [Re: html contact email] Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2013-06-28 23:47 +0200
                Re: OT [Re: html contact email] jans <janis.rough@gmail.com> - 2013-06-28 15:17 -0700
                  Re: OT [Re: html contact email] Timothy <timothy@nospam.tdl> - 2013-06-28 22:52 +0000
                    Re: OT [Re: html contact email] Twayne <nobody@spamcop.net> - 2013-06-29 18:11 -0400
                      Re: OT [Re: html contact email] Timothy <timothy@nospam.tdl> - 2013-06-30 10:46 +0000
                        Re: OT [Re: html contact email] Twayne <nobody@spamcop.net> - 2013-06-30 19:59 -0400
                  [OT] mailto: (was: OT) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-29 01:34 +0200
                    Re: [OT] mailto: (was: OT) jans <janis.rough@gmail.com> - 2013-06-28 16:43 -0700
                      Re: [OT] mailto: Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-06-29 02:37 +0200
                        Re: [OT] mailto: Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-06-29 02:40 +0200
                          Re: [OT] mailto: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-29 04:29 +0200
                            Re: [OT] mailto: Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-07-10 02:20 +0200
                              Re: [OT] mailto: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-07-10 22:14 +0200
                                Re: [OT] mailto: Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-07-15 00:06 +0200
                                  Re: [OT] mailto: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-07-15 00:45 +0200
                      Re: [OT] mailto: (was: OT) Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-06-29 16:46 +0000
              Re: html contact email Twayne <nobody@spamcop.net> - 2013-06-29 18:06 -0400
                Re: html contact email Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-06-29 18:24 -0400
                  Re: html contact email "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2013-06-29 22:59 +0000
                    Re: html contact email Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-06-29 20:12 -0400
                      Re: html contact email "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2013-06-30 00:31 +0000
                        Re: html contact email Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-06-29 22:31 -0400
                          Re: html contact email "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2013-06-30 02:39 +0000
                      Re: html contact email "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2013-06-29 19:37 -0500
                        Re: html contact email Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-30 12:55 +0200
                  Re: html contact email Twayne <nobody@spamcop.net> - 2013-06-30 19:52 -0400
                    Re: html contact email Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-06-30 20:25 -0400
      Re: html contact email Twayne <nobody@spamcop.net> - 2013-06-29 18:37 -0400
        Re: html contact email Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-06-29 21:34 -0400
          Re: html contact email Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-06-30 13:00 +0200
            +1 Re: html contact email Twayne <nobody@spamcop.net> - 2013-06-30 20:07 -0400
          Re: html contact email Twayne <nobody@spamcop.net> - 2013-06-30 20:03 -0400

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#10061 — Re: [OT] mailto:

Christoph Michael Becker wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Christoph Michael Becker wrote:
>>> Christoph Michael Becker wrote:
>>>> (a) you use the "mailto:" protocol
>>> Make that "mailto" protocol, of course.
>> Make that “‘mailto:’ URI scheme”.
> 
> ACK.  According to RFC 2368 one may call it "The mailto URL scheme".

With RFC research it is always a good idea to use tools.ietf.org instead of 
just www.ietf.org.  Not only the former provides the RFC text with 
hyperlinks, but it also includes information on updates:

<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6068>

(I have “http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc%s” with keyword “rfc” as bookmarklet 
in Chromium.)
 
rfc-editor.org also is an up-to-date official reference:

<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6068>

(Both are second and third in my Google search results for “rfc 2368”.
The plain-text version comes first.)

> It seems to me that the quite common use of the wording "mailto
> protocol" is a misnomer, which might stem from the wording "HTTP
> protocol" (the latter being indeed a protocol, while the former is
> not--CMIIW).

[x] done ;-)


Regards,

PointedEars
-- 
> If you get a bunch of authors […] that state the same "best practices"
> in any programming language, then you can bet who is wrong or right...
Not with javascript. Nonsense propagates like wildfire in this field.
  -- Richard Cornford, comp.lang.javascript, 2011-11-14

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10107 — Re: [OT] mailto:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn schrieb:

Christoph Michael Becker wrote:

>> ACK.  According to RFC 2368 one may call it "The mailto URL scheme".
> With RFC research it is always a good idea to use tools.ietf.org instead of 
> just www.ietf.org.  Not only the former provides the RFC text with 
> hyperlinks, but it also includes information on updates:
> 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6068>
> 
> (I have “http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc%s” with keyword “rfc” as bookmarklet 
> in Chromium.)
>  
> rfc-editor.org also is an up-to-date official reference:
> 
> <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6068>
> 
> (Both are second and third in my Google search results for “rfc 2368”.
> The plain-text version comes first.)

Thanks.  I have not been aware that there are several sets of RFC
documents available, which apparently are not all ammended with
up-to-date information.  I shall concentrate on tools.ietf.org/html/ in
the future.

BTW: the current status of RFC 6068 is "proposed standard", so I presume
that RFC 2368 is not actually obsoleted yet.

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10109 — Re: [OT] mailto:

Christoph Michael Becker wrote:

> BTW: the current status of RFC 6068 is "proposed standard", so I presume
> that RFC 2368 is not actually obsoleted yet.

RFC 2368 *also* is “only” a Proposed Standard, so it is obsoleted by
RFC 6068 (Proposed Standard):

<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html>

Details would be found in the IETF/IESG documentation and are off-topic 
here.


F'up2 poster

PointedEars
-- 
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
  -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9969 — Re: [OT] mailto: (was: OT)

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:43:35 -0700, jans wrote:

> Okay, fair enough.  I have one more question.  If I have to process it
> without mailto, is there a way to just have a popup in an anchor?  I
> don't want it to be a form response.  I just want to click the anchor
> link and have the email popup.  So should he not have a email configured
> for example if he uses hotmail then I guess I would have to use some php
> class for that?  I know gmail works as a default but I don't know about
> hotmail.  I am assuming there are only hotmail, yahoo, or gmail to worry
> about or Outlook

You're missing the point completely.

The action triggered by clicking a mailto link inside a web browser is 
totally reliant upon configuration settings on the client's computer that 
the web page provider has no control over whatsoever.

You have no way of telling if the mailto link is going to work or not. If 
you want to be friendly to [potential] customers (I assume that you're 
developing a site for some sort of customer interaction), the best 
solution is to provide as many alternative means of contact as possible - 
be inclusive. So: mailto link, contact form, fax, telephone, post, 
twitter, facebook, sms ... consider them all as potential means for a 
customer to communicate, and provide relevant information for those that 
are determined to be valid.

-- 
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9974

On 2013-06-28 5:21 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 6/28/2013 5:11 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> jans <janis.rough@gmail.com> wrote in news:70ac3725-639b-4d0e-ad99-
>> 19b104bc1ffa@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> I got that,sorry for not being exact.  I was assuming they were using
>>> Outlook since it is a
>> research office.  Ok it must be they weren't.  Thanks,
>>
>> It has nothing at all to do with which email client the customer is
>> using. The issue is whether the
>> customer does, or does not, have a default email client configured,
>> without regard to which
>> one it is. If there is no default email client configured, mailto:
>> will not work. If there is a default
>> email client configured, mailto: will invoke it, whether it's Eudora,
>> Thunderbird, Outlook
>> Express, or whatever.
>>
>
> The key here is "email client CONFIGURED".  They may have a default
> email client (i.e. Windoze comes with Outlook or whatever has replaced
> it now), but that client may not be configured.

Configured for what? And how is it "key" to this in any way whatsoever?
Outlook is HIGHLY configurable and though I no longer need it, it's 
nothing to do with anything talked about here.
    Outlook does NOT come with windows; it may be purchases as part of 
the Office Suite MS offers or just the one stand-alone application which 
is NOT part of the OS.
    Outlook Express, dead as it's been for a lot of years, was also 
removed. It WAS part of windows, so  if that's what you were thinking 
of, you're  mixed up. XP is the last version of windows that included 
Outlook Express, which has NO relation to Outlook whatsoever.

>
> The result is the email client will be invoked - but will be unable to
> send email.

Where the heck you had your head when you wrote that is beyond me, but 
it's totally foreign to anything discussed so far.

When you're not sure of what you're about to say, it's best not to say 
it and prove you don't know. Neither are rhetorical and ego-bent pompous 
unrelated statements of any use.

Please re-adjust your attitudes; you are burning out.

Twayne`
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9976

On 6/29/2013 6:06 PM, Twayne wrote:
> On 2013-06-28 5:21 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 6/28/2013 5:11 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> jans <janis.rough@gmail.com> wrote in news:70ac3725-639b-4d0e-ad99-
>>> 19b104bc1ffa@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> I got that,sorry for not being exact.  I was assuming they were using
>>>> Outlook since it is a
>>> research office.  Ok it must be they weren't.  Thanks,
>>>
>>> It has nothing at all to do with which email client the customer is
>>> using. The issue is whether the
>>> customer does, or does not, have a default email client configured,
>>> without regard to which
>>> one it is. If there is no default email client configured, mailto:
>>> will not work. If there is a default
>>> email client configured, mailto: will invoke it, whether it's Eudora,
>>> Thunderbird, Outlook
>>> Express, or whatever.
>>>
>>
>> The key here is "email client CONFIGURED".  They may have a default
>> email client (i.e. Windoze comes with Outlook or whatever has replaced
>> it now), but that client may not be configured.
>
> Configured for what? And how is it "key" to this in any way whatsoever?
> Outlook is HIGHLY configurable and though I no longer need it, it's
> nothing to do with anything talked about here.
>     Outlook does NOT come with windows; it may be purchases as part of
> the Office Suite MS offers or just the one stand-alone application which
> is NOT part of the OS.
>     Outlook Express, dead as it's been for a lot of years, was also
> removed. It WAS part of windows, so  if that's what you were thinking
> of, you're  mixed up. XP is the last version of windows that included
> Outlook Express, which has NO relation to Outlook whatsoever.
>

The email client must be configured correctly to connect to an MTA - 
whether it be gmail, the isp or whatever.  It is a key factor - because 
without the correct configuration, the user will not be able to send 
email.  However, I also know that this description is beyond your level 
of comprehension.

As for Outlook Express - that's fine.  I don't use more MS products than 
I absolutely have to.  That's why I said OR WHATEVER HAS REPLACED IT 
NOW.  Windows still comes with some kind of email client.

>>
>> The result is the email client will be invoked - but will be unable to
>> send email.
>
> Where the heck you had your head when you wrote that is beyond me, but
> it's totally foreign to anything discussed so far.
>

Right on top of my shoulders, where it belongs.  But again, this is 
quite beyond your level of comprehension.

> When you're not sure of what you're about to say, it's best not to say
> it and prove you don't know. Neither are rhetorical and ego-bent pompous
> unrelated statements of any use.
>
> Please re-adjust your attitudes; you are burning out.
>
> Twayne`
>>
>
>

Yes, I would suggest you stop showing your ignorance.  It only makes you 
look more stoopid.


-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9979

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Twayne wrote:
[biggasnip]
>>     Outlook Express, dead as it's been for a lot of years, was also
>> removed. It WAS part of windows, so  if that's what you were thinking
>> of, you're  mixed up. XP is the last version of windows that included
>> Outlook Express, which has NO relation to Outlook whatsoever.

I believe you meant that Outlook Express was part of Internet Explorer 6, 
instead of a part of Windows. Once IE6 was superceded, OE went away. IE7 
and up did not include OE.

> As for Outlook Express - that's fine.  I don't use more MS products than
> I absolutely have to.  That's why I said OR WHATEVER HAS REPLACED IT
> NOW.  Windows still comes with some kind of email client.

No, it doesn't come with an email client. The user must add one separately 
and intentionally, such as Outlook, Windows Live Mail, Thunderbird, others.

-- 
   -bts
   -This space for rent, but the price is high

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9980

On 6/29/2013 6:59 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Twayne wrote:
> [biggasnip]
>>>      Outlook Express, dead as it's been for a lot of years, was also
>>> removed. It WAS part of windows, so  if that's what you were thinking
>>> of, you're  mixed up. XP is the last version of windows that included
>>> Outlook Express, which has NO relation to Outlook whatsoever.
>
> I believe you meant that Outlook Express was part of Internet Explorer 6,
> instead of a part of Windows. Once IE6 was superceded, OE went away. IE7
> and up did not include OE.
>

OK, so they changed the name (originally there was an Outlook which came 
with Windows - back around WNT IIRC).  I guess they slimmed it down and 
put the full version in MS Office.

But I didn't think it was related to IE at all.  Just another app 
packaged in Windows.

>> As for Outlook Express - that's fine.  I don't use more MS products than
>> I absolutely have to.  That's why I said OR WHATEVER HAS REPLACED IT
>> NOW.  Windows still comes with some kind of email client.
>
> No, it doesn't come with an email client. The user must add one separately
> and intentionally, such as Outlook, Windows Live Mail, Thunderbird, others.
>

OK, I thought it still came with an email client.  I guess you have to 
download it from Microsoft (or where ever) then.  But even once 
downloaded, it still needs to be configured.


-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9981

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> Twayne wrote:
>> [biggasnip]
>>>>      Outlook Express, dead as it's been for a lot of years, was also
>>>> removed. It WAS part of windows, so  if that's what you were thinking
>>>> of, you're  mixed up. XP is the last version of windows that included
>>>> Outlook Express, which has NO relation to Outlook whatsoever.
>>
>> I believe you meant that Outlook Express was part of Internet Explorer
>> 6, instead of a part of Windows. Once IE6 was superceded, OE went away.
>> IE7 and up did not include OE.
>
> OK, so they changed the name (originally there was an Outlook which came
> with Windows - back around WNT IIRC).  I guess they slimmed it down and
> put the full version in MS Office.

Outlook is a PIM rather than just an email client. It is completely 
separate and unrelated to Outlook Express. This is very common knowledge. 
And it never "came with Windows" unless a pre-configured machine was 
purchased with it already installed - and then you still paid for a 
license.

> But I didn't think it was related to IE at all.  Just another app
> packaged in Windows.

OE was always a subset of IE. Also common knowledge.

>>> As for Outlook Express - that's fine.  I don't use more MS products
>>> than I absolutely have to.  That's why I said OR WHATEVER HAS REPLACED
>>> IT NOW.  Windows still comes with some kind of email client.
>>
>> No, it doesn't come with an email client. The user must add one
>> separately and intentionally, such as Outlook, Windows Live Mail,
>> Thunderbird, others.
>
> OK, I thought it still came with an email client.  I guess you have to
> download it from Microsoft (or where ever) then. 

You can download any email client you want. Some are from Microsoft, most 
are not. You can *buy* Outlook if that is your pleasure because it is not 
free. Outlook can be purchased separately, or as a bundle with MS Office.

> But even once downloaded, it still needs to be configured.

Well, that's a given. Ms Rough is probably the only one who doesn't know 
how that works.

-- 
   -bts
   -This space for rent, but the price is high

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9984

On 6/29/2013 8:31 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> free. Outlook can be purchased separately, or as a bundle with MS Office.
>
>> But even once downloaded, it still needs to be configured.
>
> Well, that's a given. Ms Rough is probably the only one who doesn't know
> how that works.
>

And Twayne, obviously.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9985

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:  [no, you didn't, I did]
>> free. Outlook can be purchased separately, or as a bundle with MS
>> Office.
>>
>>> But even once downloaded, it still needs to be configured.
>>
>> Well, that's a given. Ms Rough is probably the only one who doesn't
>> know how that works.
>
> And Twayne, obviously.

You're being harsh. I understood what Twayne meant, even if you didn't. 
But then you also didn't know Windows stopped including email clients 
several versions ago.

-- 
   -bts
   -This space for rent, but the price is high

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9982

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 20:12:34 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 6/29/2013 6:59 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> No, it doesn't come with an email client. The user must add one separately
>> and intentionally, such as Outlook, Windows Live Mail, Thunderbird, others.
>>
>
> OK, I thought it still came with an email client.  I guess you have to 
> download it from Microsoft (or where ever) then.  But even once 
> downloaded, it still needs to be configured.

XP had Outlook Express

Vista had "Windows Mail"

Windows 7 comes/came with Windows Essentials, which includes Windows
Live Mail (formerly Live Mail Desktop, separately, IIRC).

But yes, by default, I don't think these things are set to be the
default mail handler application for the OS, and they're *certainly* not
automagically configured to work properly with whatever the user's
particular prefered email service. Which means that someone would have
had to know that they were there, configure them, set the mail handler
config in wherever the contemporary version of "Internet Options" is.
Obviously, I don't have it configured either. Some mail agent's
installers will do that stuff for you as part of the setup, but not all
do. And it certainly does NOTHING for those of us that are luddite
enough to still be using mutt(1) on a shell account for email.

-- 
"This place is evil! We need weapons! Crossbows! Rocket Launchers! 
Rent-a-zilla!"
                 -- L33t Master Largo  www.megatokyo.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9989

Peter H. Coffin wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 20:12:34 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 6/29/2013 6:59 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> No, it doesn't come with an email client. The user must add one
>>> separately and intentionally, such as Outlook, Windows Live Mail,
>>> Thunderbird, others.
>>
>> OK, I thought it still came with an email client.  I guess you have to
>> download it from Microsoft (or where ever) then.  But even once
>> downloaded, it still needs to be configured.
> 
> XP had Outlook Express
> 
> Vista had "Windows Mail"
> 
> Windows 7 comes/came with Windows Essentials, which includes Windows
> Live Mail (formerly Live Mail Desktop, separately, IIRC).
> 
> But yes, by default, I don't think these things are set to be the
> default mail handler application for the OS,

At least Outlook Express was, which I used on Windows 95 to 2000.  It would 
be even poorer on Microsoft's record if the other versions were not.

> and they're *certainly* not automagically configured to work properly with
> whatever the user's particular prefered email service. […]

AFAIK, that much is true.  One should also consider that there are, arguably 
fewer these days in developed countries, Internet cafés where the computer 
used does not have a single user, and the user is not allowed to modify 
system settings in order to prevent them from interfering with the café's 
business.


PointedEars
-- 
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
  -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9995

LOL! That's funny! I correctly guessed exactly two of your responses 
would be!

...
>>
>
> The email client must be configured correctly to connect to an MTA -
> whether it be gmail, the isp or whatever.  It is a key factor - because
> without the correct configuration, the user will not be able to send
> email.  However, I also know that this description is beyond your level
> of comprehension.

You SERIOUSLY think one who is working online forms et al, would NOT 
already have a working e-mail client? That's pretty "stoopid"  to use 
your own word for it,
>
> As for Outlook Express - that's fine.  I don't use more MS products than
> I absolutely have to.  That's why I said OR WHATEVER HAS REPLACED IT
> NOW.  Windows still comes with some kind of email client.

I mentioned OE in passing; YOU were talking about Outlook! And you 
couldn't have been more myopic if you actually tried.

>
>>>
>>> The result is the email client will be invoked - but will be unable to
>>> send email.
>>
>> Where the heck you had your head when you wrote that is beyond me, but
>> it's totally foreign to anything discussed so far.
>>
>
> Right on top of my shoulders, where it belongs.  But again, this is
> quite beyond your level of comprehension But, that's your modus operandi, isn't it?

There was a time you made a few good posts and actually helped a person 
or two, but those days are long gone now for some reason only you and 
your psychosis are aware of.
>
>> When you're not sure of what you're about to say, it's best not to say
>> it and prove you don't know. Neither are rhetorical and ego-bent pompous
>> unrelated statements of any use.G
>>
>> Please re-adjust your attitudes; you are burning out.
>>
>> Twayne`
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Yes, I would suggest you stop showing your ignorance.  It only makes you
> look more stoopid.

Nice: When you know you loused up, which has been your norm for the last 
few years, you start name-calling.

Because you have such a pendant for starting flame wars and arguing 
silly things like you do, I'll no longer be bothering with reading 
anything you write. I don't participate in your kind of BS and have no 
use for egoes as out of control as yours is,

Sea Kelp, man.


>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9999

On 6/30/2013 7:52 PM, Twayne wrote:
> LOL! That's funny! I correctly guessed exactly two of your responses
> would be!
>
> ...
>>>
>>
>> The email client must be configured correctly to connect to an MTA -
>> whether it be gmail, the isp or whatever.  It is a key factor - because
>> without the correct configuration, the user will not be able to send
>> email.  However, I also know that this description is beyond your level
>> of comprehension.
>
> You SERIOUSLY think one who is working online forms et al, would NOT
> already have a working e-mail client? That's pretty "stoopid"  to use
> your own word for it,

Yup, there are a lot of people out there who only use Yahoo mail or 
other web-based email.  They do not have an email client installed (or 
configured).

>>
>> As for Outlook Express - that's fine.  I don't use more MS products than
>> I absolutely have to.  That's why I said OR WHATEVER HAS REPLACED IT
>> NOW.  Windows still comes with some kind of email client.
>
> I mentioned OE in passing; YOU were talking about Outlook! And you
> couldn't have been more myopic if you actually tried.
>

Yea, it's just like a troll to make a big deal out of something like 
that.  But then they have to make a big deal about little things because 
they have no leg to stand on for the correct answers.

>>
>>>>
>>>> The result is the email client will be invoked - but will be unable to
>>>> send email.
>>>
>>> Where the heck you had your head when you wrote that is beyond me, but
>>> it's totally foreign to anything discussed so far.
>>>
>>
>> Right on top of my shoulders, where it belongs.  But again, this is
>> quite beyond your level of comprehension But, that's your modus
>> operandi, isn't it?
>
> There was a time you made a few good posts and actually helped a person
> or two, but those days are long gone now for some reason only you and
> your psychosis are aware of.

Oh, you mean unlike you, who have NEVER made a helpful post?  I have 
made a lot of helpful posts here, and recently, also.  Just because they 
don't fit your narrow mind doesn't mean they're not helpful to others.

>>
>>> When you're not sure of what you're about to say, it's best not to say
>>> it and prove you don't know. Neither are rhetorical and ego-bent pompous
>>> unrelated statements of any use.G
>>>
>>> Please re-adjust your attitudes; you are burning out.
>>>
>>> Twayne`
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I would suggest you stop showing your ignorance.  It only makes you
>> look more stoopid.
>
> Nice: When you know you loused up, which has been your norm for the last
> few years, you start name-calling.
>

Nope, just pointing out the facts.

> Because you have such a pendant for starting flame wars and arguing
> silly things like you do, I'll no longer be bothering with reading
> anything you write. I don't participate in your kind of BS and have no
> use for egoes as out of control as yours is,
>

That will be a plus.  Then I don't have to read your tripe responses. 
But be assured, I will continue to correct your BS.

> Sea Kelp, man.
>
>

ROFLMAO!

>>
>>
>



-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9977

On 2013-06-28 4:39 PM, jans wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, June 28, 2013 12:16:28 PM UTC-7, jans wrote:
>> What is wrong with sending email through HTML?  For example,
>>
>> 				<br />Customer Service
>>
>> 				<br /><a href="mailto:orders@tonbobio.com" title="Email Tonbo Customer Service">

orders@tonbobio.com</a>
>>
>> 				
>>
>> 				
>>
>> This is just a random example I found on the internet but I like this format with the anchor and a customer

  is claiming it only sporadically works on my page.  The page extension 
was php but I only had one included page,

so I copied that page into my page and changed the extension to html.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the page extension was php instead of html would that cause my email to only work sporadically?

    Is there a way to format php sendmail without it being in a form 
just a simple email address in an

  anchor? Thanks,
>
> thanks for both replies for my info, I was instructed to do it this way then they didn't like it

because a customer complained.  I never used mailto before.  I will 
never know if it was sporadic

if it was because of the php extension but maybe that shouldn't matter.
>

This has turned into a pretty long thread that's not going in the 
direction you need. Lots of advice, much of it good, but little to let 
you point yourself in a good direction. I'm no guru by any means, but 
here are my opinions:

1.  Mail-to  is a poor way to go. In general mailto links are easily 
scraped to steal addresses for spam lists and worse because the keep all 
the information out in the open. They're easy  to compromise.

2.  IMO the PHP language is a great way to go as you can have files on 
the server which do many things, including providing security for e-mail 
addresses and any personal information you may store.

3. You don't mention your OS that I noticed, but the PHP mailto() 
function will implement server-side scripts what no one else can see or 
get at if it's written with good enough security.  All the important 
work happens on the server where it's not visible to hackers and doesn't 
show up in ANY HTML code that a "view source" displays.

IMO again, the best places to start learning about PHP would be:
1.  php.net/manual/en/index.php  <----------- more or less a bible on PHP
2.  www.w3schools.com/‎ <---- good tutorials, etc. More "plain language" 
than the "manual". Testable examples, etc.
3. Newsgroup This one
4. and finally, a good forum: 
https://webservices.thesba.com/forum/index.php

Luck!

Twayne`

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9983

On 6/29/13 6:37 PM, Twayne wrote:

>    Is there a way to format php sendmail without it being in a form just
> a simple email address in an
>  anchor? Thanks,

To send an email with php, you need to invoke a php script with the data
the script needs to build the email. It doesn't require a "form", but
you do need some way to get the needed info from the user (forms are
just an easy way to get data).

Invoking the script could be done by directing to a page, or by having a
client side script make a background request to the script (like using
AJAX).

The big difference between a mailto link and a php script request is
that the mail to link will assume that there is a proper mail client
configured on the client, and that it will just need information like
the destination address, and (maybe) subject. It will be assumed that it
already knows the users email address and how to send the email from the
client.

The php script on the other hand, likely doesn't need the destination
address and such, but likely DOES need the information about the user
(like their email address, and maybe what to send in the email). This
information will normally come from a form, but it is possible that it
could come from some other source.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9990

Richard Damon wrote:

> On 6/29/13 6:37 PM, Twayne wrote:
>>    Is there a way to format php sendmail without it being in a form just
>> a simple email address in an
>>  anchor? Thanks,
> 
> To send an email with php, you need to invoke a php script with the data
> the script needs to build the email. It doesn't require a "form", but
> you do need some way to get the needed info from the user (forms are
> just an easy way to get data).

More importantly these days, forms are a way to reduce the risk of being 
spammed as by contrast to other means they can include challenge-response 
mechanisms to make sure that an actual person earnestly submitted the 
information.


PointedEars 
-- 
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9998 — +1 Re: html contact email

On 2013-06-30 7:00 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Damon wrote:
>
>> On 6/29/13 6:37 PM, Twayne wrote:
>>>     Is there a way to format php sendmail without it being in a form just
>>> a simple email address in an
>>>   anchor? Thanks,
>>
>> To send an email with php, you need to invoke a php script with the data
>> the script needs to build the email. It doesn't require a "form", but
>> you do need some way to get the needed info from the user (forms are
>> just an easy way to get data).
>
> More importantly these days, forms are a way to reduce the risk of being
> spammed as by contrast to other means they can include challenge-response
> mechanisms to make sure that an actual person earnestly submitted the
> information.
>
>
> PointedEars
>
EGGzactly - +1!
    You can add cross-scripting, code injection and a lot more to the 
list too. For windows users Forms are probably the best way to go. I use 
them myself though I'm no guru in any way.
Twayne`

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9997

On 2013-06-29 9:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/29/13 6:37 PM, Twayne wrote:
>
>>     Is there a way to format php sendmail without it being in a form just
>> a simple email address in an
>>   anchor? Thanks,
>
> To send an email with php, you need to invoke a php script with the data
> the script needs to build the email. It doesn't require a "form", but
> you do need some way to get the needed info from the user (forms are
> just an easy way to get data).
>
> Invoking the script could be done by directing to a page, or by having a
> client side script make a background request to the script (like using
> AJAX).
>
> The big difference between a mailto link and a php script request is
> that the mail to link will assume that there is a proper mail client
> configured on the client, and that it will just need information like
> the destination address, and (maybe) subject. It will be assumed that it
> already knows the users email address and how to send the email from the
> client.
>
> The php script on the other hand, likely doesn't need the destination
> address and such, but likely DOES need the information about the user
> (like their email address, and maybe what to send in the email). This
> information will normally come from a form, but it is possible that it
> could come from some other source.
>

Good response, but I think you misdirected it; the OP is someone else I 
forget the name right now, not me. Unless my newsreader is glitched, 
which is always possible.

Cheers,

Twayne`

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php

csiph-web