next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
I'm afraid I just don't see this--I just tried both mf2 and mf3 under
various conditions. There is very little difference between the two.
The main difference is a necessary change that I made between mf2 and mf3
to put the phone number in an X-phone: header rather than a Reply-to:
header since the latter si syntax-checked by the mailer.
In CSuite, mf3 has been renamed to send-mail and pm3 to post-mail
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, David L. Potter wrote:
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 16:16:57 -0400
> From: Tony Cianfaglione <ab616@chebucto.ns.ca>
> To: Gerard MacNeil <macneil@chebucto.ns.ca>
> Cc: ccn-tech@chebucto.ns.ca
> Subject: Re: Using CSuite Mail forms
>
>
> Hi Gerard,
>
> Just my thoughts on this...
>
> MF3 is terrible. After all the effort you spend to type in your
> address, name and a message, it takes you to an even larger screen where
> it wants everything again plus more.
>
> Kinda makes visitors say, "ah, I didn't want to send him a message
> that badly anyway."
>
> PM2 is not out of date. On the contrary, it keeps everything simple
> and that is the way most people like it. Adding a second screen is
> alright but it should be explained to everyone uses mf3 that it makes the
> visitors work more.
>
> Tony
>
> -----------------------
>
> On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Gerard MacNeil wrote:
>
> > However, the proper cgi program to call is "mf3" (3rd version of mail
> > form) to put in your HTML document. Calling "pm3" directly is
> > not guaranteed to work. mf2 and pm2 exist, but they are out-of-date.
>
>
>
David Trueman,
Systems Manager, Dalhousie Math, Stats and Computing Science
Technical Chair, Chebucto Community Net
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects