On Thursday, October 19, 2000, 9:06:23 AM, Nick wrote:
>> I'm constantly amused by how we expect TB to do things in a
>> certain way without thinking how others might want it
>> differently, and how on earth TB could distinguish them from us.
>> :)
> I couldn't agree with you more Ming-Li... and that is why TB!
> shouldn't even try. It should simply adopt the standards as laid
> out in RFC 2368 which clearly defines a MailTo link:
Looks like we are reaching different conclusion from the same
starting point. :)
> "The mailto URL scheme is used to designate the Internet mailing
> address of an individual or service. In its simplest form, a
> mailto URL contains an Internet mail address." ...RFC 2368
Home come I got the feeling that you're stretching a little bit. :)
> It requires no further addressing on the part of the MUA, and it
> would be presumptuous to do otherwise. The MUA should simply
> create the message to the *designated* address, and allow the User
> to edit the message, send this message unedited, or choose not to
> send the message. :o)
Well, the RFC doesn't say anything about template, does it? In TB,
it has to honor the folder template, which is a specified order from
the user. As I said, it would be nice if TB could make available an
additional option where the folder template (or even all templates)
could be ignored under such circumstances. But I don't agree TB
*should* simply disregard my templates when I click on a mailto
link. I don't think the RFC *requires* that, however you stretch it.
:-)
--
Best regards,
Ming-Li
The Bat! 1.47 Beta/7 | Win2k SP1
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
