On Wed, November 14, 2007 7:11 am, Nick Rout wrote: > Volker Kuhlmann wrote: >> On Tue 13 Nov 2007 21:59:01 NZDT +1300, Jim Cheetham wrote: >> >> >>>> the link in the header is not standards compliant (?body= is not part >>>> of >>>> the mailto: format IIRC ) >>>> >>> Well, how widely is it supported, I wonder? We could always try it .... >>> >> >> Which mail client/browser does not support ?body= ? What's the worst >> that can happen? The extra bit gets ignored. It gets added to the >> subject. So what. >> >> Volker >> >> > actually I was wrong, the newer RFC does include ?body= > > Which clients support it I don't know. > > Forget I spoke :-) > >
More particularly the RFC seems to be 2368 - the mailto URL scheme which states: "The special hname "body" indicates that the associated hvalue is the body of the message. The "body" hname should contain the content for the first text/plain body part of the message. The mailto URL is primarily intended for generation of short text messages that are actually the content of automatic processing (such as "subscribe" messages for mailing lists), not general MIME bodies." http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2368.html RFC 2368 replaces RFC 1738 Uniform Resource Locators (URL) which had a very short mailto specification. -- Nick Rout
