From: Daniel Stenberg (daniel@haxx.se)
Date: Sat Mar 24 2001 - 13:38:44 CST
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Roderick Bloem wrote:
> If I take a message from the archive, and click [ respond to this message
> ], that corresponds to the URL, say:
>
> "mailto:boldhsv@jobim.colorado.edu?Subject=Re:%20BUG%20FIXED:%20guided%20search%20for%20CTL&In-Reply-To=<3ABB843B.C8D4D127@colorado.edu>".
This mailto: link does not conform to what RFC2368 (section 2) says about
mailto: URLs:
mailtoURL = "mailto:" [ to ] [ headers ]
to = #mailbox
headers = "?" header *( "&" header )
header = hname "=" hvalue
hname = *urlc
hvalue = *urlc
Note how multiple headers are separated. Then read a following paragraph from
that same RFC:
Because the "&" (ampersand) character is reserved in HTML, any mailto
URL which contains an ampersand must be spelled differently in HTML
than in other contexts. A mailto URL which appears in an HTML
document must use "&" instead of "&".
> Note that there is no In-Reply-To field!
... this might be because of this bad format. But also:
The user agent interpreting a mailto URL SHOULD choose not to create
a message if any of the headers are considered dangerous; it may also
choose to create a message with only a subset of the headers given in
the URL. Only the Subject, Keywords, and Body headers are believed
to be both safe and useful.
There's nothing that says it must use that header, even if it understands it.
--
Daniel Stenberg - http://daniel.haxx.se - +46-705-44 31 77
ech`echo xiun|tr nu oc|sed 'sx\([sx]\)\([xoi]\)xo un\2\1 is xg'`ol