Re: mailserver: vs. expanded mailto: URL

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Tue, 21 Nov 1995 22:29:35 PST


To: asg@severn.wash.inmet.com
Cc: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, asg@severn.wash.inmet.com, uri@bunyip.com,
In-Reply-To: Al Gilman's message of Tue, 21 Nov 1995 21:13:21 -0800 <9511220513.AA08946@severn.wash.inmet.com>
Subject: Re: mailserver: vs. expanded mailto: URL
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <95Nov21.222940pst.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 22:29:35 PST

> Forms mode requires HTTP.  Mail clients will be getting
> URIs in text/HTML independently from of access to HTTP.  

Consider section 5.6 of RFC 1867:

================================================================
5.6 Allow form ACTION to be "mailto:"

  Independent of this proposal, it would be very useful for HTML
  interpreting user agents to allow a ACTION in a form to be a
  "mailto:" URL. This seems like a good idea, with or without this
  proposal. Similarly, the ACTION for a HTML form which is received
  via mail should probably default to the "reply-to:" of the message.
  These two proposals would allow HTML forms to be served via HTTP
  servers but sent back via mail, or, alternatively, allow HTML forms
  to be sent by mail, filled out by HTML-aware mail recipients, and
  the results mailed back.
================================================================


As for Foteos Macrides' note:

> 	In theory, at least, one could use it in a form to set the
> subject, and treat the form content as the body field:

>  <FORM METHOD="POST" ACTION="mailserv:user@host/Form%20submission">

As I pointed out in a previous note, the BODY of the message is pretty
stylized, is  setting an explicit subject really an important add?