From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2F4F1F852; Thu, 22 Dec 2022 11:28:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=80x24.org; s=selector1; t=1671708530; bh=fLiL2qfT4KkmzhO0vM/SUm1dZN4/7eK25iQ67SRP15k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=mzvKUW2HVAccepRxXyfZYS2y7TJWT4HHIMvn63n3nku7Zz3E9/4lKKfZJWwdNKryB fvk9BhYiWVbYwBxYGZ3wpNpdtWJP8hBmRLbJCEKRe+mHYGl4aGF3K/7JGlP7wyZ4BW RGraYI/KPxrjQMawy2UuxJRihXvTC02IFXaePKzg= Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 11:28:50 +0000 From: Eric Wong To: Siddh Raman Pant Cc: meta@public-inbox.org Subject: Re: Feature request: Support for body in mailto links Message-ID: <20221222112850.M565686@dcvr> References: <18535462dd8.51aa0823363186.5436123899292105414@siddh.me> <20221221210419.M104936@dcvr> <18538929ff8.403f681413425.3049598018127849867@siddh.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18538929ff8.403f681413425.3049598018127849867@siddh.me> List-Id: Siddh Raman Pant wrote: > On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 02:34:19 +0530, Eric Wong, wrote: > > Siddh Raman Pant code@siddh.me> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > It would be nice if mailto links also contained the body of the > > > email one is replying to in quoted form (i.e. have leading "> ") > > > so that one can directly start replying when the client opens. It > > > seems the "body" hname allows this behaviour. > > > > How many mail clients does it work on? And do people even use > > mailto: links? > > I tried it on mutt, Thunderbird, GMail web and mobile, Outlook web, > and Samsung's mobile mail app. So it does seem to have wide support. Thanks for checking. > If mailto is unused, why would the option and its support be there > in this project, and also in proprietary clients on mobile and web? Nobody really knows if it's used or not, or if people opt to use `git send-email' instead. But it is currently inexpensive to support mailto: with headers-only. > Debbugs also has the behaviour I mentioned, you may try it on any of > their bug report email pages. For example: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1018118 > (I know it's not exactly an archival project like this.) Noted. Yet they also have mailto:$NUM@bugs.debian.org w/o any args at the top, too. It really seems like overkill given debbugs is in the same situation where mail is publicly archived. > > It would roughly double the the size of HTML > > responses for /$INBOX/$MSGID/ endpoints and probably increase > > browser memory use a similar amount. > > That makes sense, thanks. > > While I can't say much about performance in general (I am not much > familiar with the project internals, and came across this due to > lore.kernel.org), but regarding browser memory, the threaded view > already shows multiple messages, so I don't think it would be too > much of an issue, and the mailto links are apparently only shown > when you open permalinks. > > I just tried loading on w3m an 896 KB HTML thread from lore.kernel.org > (containing 2-3 kernel configs, which you'd agree is normally huge > spam), and w3m seems to take 33MB of memory, a normal amount. All the HTML generation on the server is already too expensive for my tastes and I'm always trying to find ways to make it faster without requiring XS modules nor any AOT compiler. The /[Tt]/ endpoints are meant to be convenient for downloading and viewing offline, but yes, they are farily expensive for browsers. The permalink endpoints are linked directly from Atom feeds and may end up being hit more by crawlers. I also remember the old days when people would be considerate enough to 'grep ^CONFIG_' to trim down configs before posting. I don't think that's common, anymore :< > > Fwiw, I'm not a fan of quoting publicly-archived mail; > > especially with our "archives first" philosophy. > > > > Quotes makes messages significantly bigger than they need to be; > > thus more expensive to mirror when the replied message is > > readily accessible in public archives. I end up skipping over > > quotes 99% of the time. > > Isn't quoting when replying to the convention? And most mailing lists > I have seen use quoting... Yes, it's from the old Usenet days when NNTP servers would routinely drop messages during propagation. Quoting messages when they miss the archives is fine. But in the case we're discussing, messages shown on the web are already archived. So yes, I believe in evolving the convention towards something more lightweight to reduce disk/network/memory footprint for everyone. But I still follow old conventions when replying to this message :x Unfortunately; over-quoting seems more common, and corporations seem to be pushing the convention towards HTML and top-posting; or worse: proprietary vendor-locked crap. Fwiw, the very earliest revisions of public-inbox HTML output would try to truncate/hide quotes behind another link. I eventually decided against it since I wanted to show readers how wasteful quotes are, so now they're shown in full. I suspect clients hiding quoted text by default encourages people to over-quote and waste bandwidth.