Fossil Forum

Missing hyperlinks in email body for the fossil forum
Login

Missing hyperlinks in email body for the fossil forum

Missing hyperlinks in email body for the fossil forum

(1) By Doug (doug9forester) on 2023-09-25 17:16:01 [link] [source]

Using Windows 11 Outlook 2016 HTML message mode

When I get email from posts to the fossil forum, there is a link I can click on to open the message in a browser and see the whole thread.

However, if there is a link in the body of the message, it shows up like this:

...  documented [here](src:/doc/trunk/www/ssl.wiki) regarding ... 

without an active link. When viewed in the browser, it is active.

Is there a way to make those links be active in the recipient's email? I'd love it.

(2) By Stephan Beal (stephan) on 2023-09-25 17:41:19 in reply to 1 [link] [source]

Is there a way to make those links be active in the recipient's email?

Fossil sends out the messages in the same format they're written in, e.g. markdown in the case of the link you posted, so links in email notifications not work in any mail client unless the links in the corresponding posts are written in plain HTML form (which nobody does because it's tedious to do).

That's unlikely to change because it would require that fossil send the mails out in HTML format, which some folks (myself included) are not all that comfortable with.

(3) By Richard Hipp (drh) on 2023-09-25 17:44:16 in reply to 2 [link] [source]

I was about to say: I prefer plaintext email.

But I could see adding the ability to opt-in for HTML emails. We have the infrastructure in place to do all the necessary translation.

Question for the OP: What's it worth to you? :-)

(4) By anonymous on 2023-09-25 18:28:10 in reply to 3 [link] [source]

You could consider providing both format at once, in the form of a multipart/alternative.

E.g.

Content-Type: multipart/alternative
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Type: text/html

That way the mail user agent can choose what's appropriate.

(5) By graham on 2023-09-25 20:34:27 in reply to 3 [link] [source]

For some, it may be sufficient to fill in the appropriate "https://fossil-scm.org/..." prefix of such links in outgoing emails: some mail-readers will "spot" the link even in non-HTML emails and make it clickable.

(6) By Doug (doug9forester) on 2023-09-25 22:12:51 in reply to 3 [link] [source]

I'll buy you dinner next time you're in Tucson!

(7) By Doug (doug9forester) on 2023-09-25 22:18:20 in reply to 2 [link] [source]

What is your discomfort about links? If you are worried that someone will put a dangerous link in a post, that problem exists using a browser to view a post, so you should disallow them there. I'd like an opt-in for sure. Many posts have links that I have found very valuable to my education.

(8) By Warren Young (wyoung) on 2023-09-26 00:16:30 in reply to 7 [link] [source]

The risk is indeed near-zero for posts originating from this forum, both for its audience and because it's well-moderated, but I'm not aware of any email client that lets you enable HTML email for one sender alone. It's all those other senders that drive one toward disabling HTML email outright.

(9) By Stephan Beal (stephan) on 2023-09-26 08:05:13 in reply to 7 [source]

What is your discomfort about links? If you are worried that someone will put a dangerous link in a post,

My own personal discomfort is not so much security-related as it is bandwidth. Posting both plain-text and HTML messages more than doubles the outbound bandwidth fossil needs for sending notifications.

Granted, we're talking maybe tens or hundreds of kilobytes per day for the two most active fossil forums (this one and sqlite), so i wouldn't object to such a change, but the thought that more than half of the outbound message payloads are wasted would still irk my inner sysadmin.

Bypassing that (non-)issue by sending only HTML-format mails would irk me because, like Richard, my general preference is for plain-text mails.

(10) By Chris (crustyoz) on 2023-09-26 11:04:52 in reply to 9 [link] [source]

... by sending only HTML-format mails would irk me because, like Richard, my general preference is for plain-text mails.

+1

More than a few times I've been asked about suspect HTML emails where exposing the true URL behind a link reveals their spamminess.