Re: e mail

John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net> Wed, 01 January 1997 19:41 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa09920; 1 Jan 97 14:41 EST
Received: from list.cren.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13283; 1 Jan 97 14:41 EST
Received: from localhost (localhost.0.0.127.in-addr.arpa [127.0.0.1]) by list.cren.net (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA09454; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 14:03:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dimacs.rutgers.edu (dimacs.rutgers.edu [128.6.75.16]) by list.cren.net (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA09442 for <ietf-smtp@list.cren.net>; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 14:03:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from a4.jck.com (ns.jck.com [206.99.215.40]) by dimacs.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA19170 for <ietf-smtp@dimacs.rutgers.edu>; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 14:03:28 -0500
Received: from white-box.jck.com ("port 2049"@white-box.jck.com) by a4.jck.com (PMDF V5.1-3 #16053) with SMTP id <0E3CFLH280068L@a4.jck.com> for ietf-smtp@dimacs.rutgers.edu; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 14:03:17 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <SIMEON.9701011415.E@white-box.mail1.reston.mci.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 14:03:15 -0500 (EST)
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@list.cren.net
Precedence: bulk
From: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
To: blousky@pitnet.net
Cc: ietf-smtp@dimacs.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: e mail
In-Reply-To: <32CA5DF9.6902@pitnet.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.1
X-Authentication: none
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 beta -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN

On Wed, 01 Jan 1997 12:52:09 +0000 ben <blousky@pitnet.net>; 
wrote:

> hi,
> 
> I am looking for a way to include email parameters in html eg..
> 
> mailto:WHATEVER YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS IS! ?subject=You can also 
> put an automatic subject here!
>...

Ben,

MAILTO URLs won't do it -- they are address-only.  There was 
some discussion a year or two ago about a different URL type 
that would be specific to things like subscription requests to 
mail-based responders (e.g., mailing list managers).  It would 
have had somewhat more capability than MAILTO, but less than 
I'd guess from your example that you are seeking. 

The obnoxious, narrow-minded guy who was then IETF Area 
Director for Applications shot the idea down because of a 
conviction that, if one was going to create a second email URL 
type, it was time to get it right and solve at least 95% of the 
problem, rather than improving on MAILTO's 10% solution with a 
40% solution.

And I think that people then stopped thinking about it -- I 
don't recall hearing anything since.

    john