(long) Programatic email: trying to use KernelLibrary>>createProces... and mailto protocol

Hi all,

    perhaps one of you has this requeriment too.

    An application needs to prepare an email with some pre-defined content
that depends on how do you use this app. Let's say that some customer wants
email you a request from the application.

    I managed to solve this in a beauty simply way using an html report with
a mailto: link that automatically preparates an email with that report.

    So where is the problem you say?

    The problem is when you try to use this in win 9x platforms. This works
fine on win2K/XP but win9x not even hit on the error message.

    So I've been investigating other ways to acomplish this, one way is
using the mailto call directly, so the code looks into the registry to find
out how the mailto: has to be passed:

    HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\mailto\shell\open\command

    There for instance you could find this:

        fileString := '"C:\ARCHIV~3\MICROS~3\Office10\OUTLOOK.EXE" -c
IPM.Note /m "%1"'

    Where offcourse you may pass a mailto sentence like this:
mailtoString := 'mailto:[hidden email]?subject=[Request] To
Provider CO&body=Mr. Provider,%0d%0a%0d%0a%09My company request you the
following articles from your stock...'

    Note that the carridge return line feed must be %0d%0a and so on...

    I've started to invoke this 'programatic email' calling from the
ShellLibrary
        ShellLibrary default shellOpen: fileString directory parameters:
mailtoString

    It didn't work

    Then from the KernelLibrary
        KernelLibrary default winExec: command

    (where command is the mailtoString inserted in place of %1)

    It also didn't work

    The e-mail get truncated at some point, actually the mailtoString cannot
be much bigger than a size of 800, lets say 840 don't fit, wich it is
obviusly a sad limitation.

    Well, actually I'm trying to find some other way to invoke the mail
client program with a mailto parameter. This time I'm trying to call the
program in it's new fashion, like M$ say, through the function createProcess
of the kernel library.

    I found hard to know by now why it allways tells that there is an
invalid handle with this code:

 si := STARTUPINFO new .
 KernelLibrary default getStartupInfo: si.
 pi := PROCESS_INFORMATION new.

 result := KernelLibrary default
  createProcess: <full exe file name>
  lpCommandLine: <parameters>
  lpProcessAttributes: nil
  lpThreadAttributes: nil
  bInheritsHandles: false
  dwCreationFlags: nil
  lpEnvironment: nil
  lpCurrentDirectory: nil
  lpStartupInfo: si
  lpProcessInformation: pi yourAddress.
 result
 KernelLibrary default closeHandle: pi yourAddress.
 KernelLibrary default getLastError

    I try to make an easy call like notepad, for instance, with no
parameters but I'm not able to make it yet.

    any pointer to solve this are welcome to this lot soul :P

    best regards,

Seb

Seb,

Attachments, aside, email is quite easy to prepare and send.  Squeak/Celeste
appears to handle attachments too, though I've never done more than poke at
it.  IMHO, you will get a lot more bang from your time spending it on
porting some Squeak code to Dolphin than you will on working around the
quirks of MS binaries on Win9x.

Just preaching what I practice :)

Have a good one,

Bill

--
Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
[hidden email]

Seb,
"Smalltalkiano" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:b99cch$gi5s7$[hidden email]...
[...]
>     The problem is when you try to use this in win 9x platforms. This
works
> fine on win2K/XP but win9x not even hit on the error message.
I wonder whether this is a problem with command-line length limits?  Old DOS
used to have a limit of 127 or 128 characters; XP supposedly has a limit of
around 8K.

[...]
> ShellLibrary
>         ShellLibrary default shellOpen: fileString directory parameters:
> mailtoString
>
>     It didn't work
I wonder whether it might work better to invoke the mail-to URL directly,
instead of passing it as a command-line argument.  Try passing just the
mailtoString to #shellOpen:.

HTH,

Don

[...]

"Don Rylander" <[hidden email]> escribió en el
mensaje news:b9b8pp$hjmhn$[hidden email]...
> Seb,
> "Smalltalkiano" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
> news:b99cch$gi5s7$[hidden email]...
> [...]
> >     The problem is when you try to use this in win 9x platforms. This
> works
> > fine on win2K/XP but win9x not even hit on the error message.
> I wonder whether this is a problem with command-line length limits?  Old
DOS
> used to have a limit of 127 or 128 characters; XP supposedly has a limit
of
> around 8K.

    As I've been reading over there, that is what's happening.

    Well I've tried your suggestion with the same results (mail body
contents truncated near 800 characters).

    But what you say here simplifies considerably the mail client
invocation.

regards,

Seb

Seb,

It looks like my earlier suggestion suffers from similar limitations, so try
this link:

http://www.smalltalking.net/Goodies/Dolphin/

Scroll down to the POP & SMTP Sockets goodie, where you'll find a port of
some of the Squeak code the Bill mentioned (with the advantage of already
being done!).

It seems to work pretty well in the simple case, although I haven't done
more than play with it.  Thanks are due to Jose Calvo for the effort.

HTH,

Don

Bill,

    I'm considering this because I have not too much options,

    regards,

Seb


"Bill Schwab" <[hidden email]> escribió en el mensaje
news:b99oit$gus5f$[hidden email]...
> Seb,
>
> Attachments, aside, email is quite easy to prepare and send.
Squeak/Celeste
> appears to handle attachments too, though I've never done more than poke
at

Dear Don,

    I'm right now testing the code that you mention.

    This package, seems to be useful taking the 'hard path' of
programatically sending an email. For usual smtp it is already fuctional, I
only need to add the smtp authentication requeriment in some sort of
SMTPAuthenticatedSocket that I'm trying to implement. It's no so trivial
because of the authentication protocol. I'm studying the RFC 2045 and 2554
to know details to authenticate and prepare the email.

    regards,

Seb




"Don Rylander" <[hidden email]> escribió en el
mensaje news:b9bang$hcrjj$[hidden email]...
> Seb,
>
> It looks like my earlier suggestion suffers from similar limitations, so
try

Seb,

>     I'm right now testing the code that you mention.
>
>     This package, seems to be useful taking the 'hard path' of
> programatically sending an email. For usual smtp it is already fuctional,
I
> only need to add the smtp authentication requeriment in some sort of
> SMTPAuthenticatedSocket that I'm trying to implement. It's no so trivial
> because of the authentication protocol. I'm studying the RFC 2045 and 2554
> to know details to authenticate and prepare the email.

I may be missing something, but if you are just trying to send emails there
is a much easier solution. D5 Standard Edition and above ship with a package
called CDO pre-installed in the image. CDO is a wrapper around Microsoft's
Collaboration Data Objects which is an interface to the e-mail system of MS
Outlook. If you have Outlook installed (not sure about Outlook Express) then
sending an e-mail becomes just a few simple calls.

There is an overview of CDO here:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dncdo121/ht
ml/collabdataobjs.asp

We use this facility in the CGI application that handles registrations for
Dolphin trial users. Below is the method that sends an e-mail out to the
trial user with a new serial number.

Best Regards,

Andy Bower
Dolphin Support
http://www.object-arts.com
---
Are you trying too hard?
http://www.object-arts.com/Relax.htm
---

TrialRegistration>>sendSerialNumber: sn
    "Private - Send <DolphinSerialNumber> sn to the person performing this
registration"

    | namespace configFields config stm msg productName |
    config := CDOIConfiguration new.
    configFields := config fields interface.
    namespace := 'http://schemas.microsoft.com/cdo/configuration/'.
    (configFields item: namespace, 'sendusing') value: 2.
    (configFields item: namespace, 'smtpserver') value:
'smtp.object-arts.com'.
    (configFields item: namespace, 'smtpserverport') value: 25.
    configFields Update.

    stm := self registrationEmailMessage formatWith: sn product fullName
        with: sn displayString
        with: sn expiryDate displayString.

    msg := CDOIMessage new.
    "(msg fields item: 'urn:schemas:httpmail:importance') value: cdoHigh."
    (msg fields interface item: 'urn:schemas:httpmail:priority') value:
cdoPriorityUrgent.
    msg fields interface Update.
    msg
        configuration: config;
        from: '[hidden email]';
        "cc: '[hidden email]';"
        to: (params at: #Email);
        subject: ('%1 Trial Registration' formatWith: sn product fullName);
        autoGenerateTextBody: true;
        textBody: stm;
        "mdnRequested: true;"
        Send.
-----

Andy Bower wrote:

> CDO is a
> wrapper around Microsoft's Collaboration Data Objects which is an
> interface to the e-mail system of MS Outlook. If you have Outlook
> installed (not sure about Outlook Express) then sending an e-mail
> becomes just a few simple calls.

The MS doc seems adamant that you have to be an exchange client to use CDO (and
I most definitely am NOT -- I wouldn't have Outlook on my machine even it it
were free).  So I was very surprised to find that this does work for me.

Simple test extracted from Andy's example, and with most of the explicit
configuration removed (so it, e.g, uses the default SMTP server -- and will
fail if there isn't one set up).

================
(CDOIMessage new)
        to: '[hidden email]';
        subject: 'Test';
        textBody: 'Just Testing';
        Send.
================

(I'm running W2K -- I don't know what would happen with, say, W98)

    -- chris

I wrote:

> The MS doc seems adamant that you have to be an exchange client to
> use CDO (and I most definitely am NOT -- I wouldn't have Outlook on
> my machine even it it were free).  So I was very surprised to find
> that this does work for me.

It seems that I'm using CDO for Windows 2000

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/cdosys/html/_c
dosys_about_cdo_for_windows_2000.asp

which -- apparently -- makes no use of MAPI at all.  Hence is independent of
Exchange, at least that's how I understand it -- I'm still trying to get my
head around the relationship between CDO4W2K and the "old-style" version.

As far as I can tell, but I might easily be wrong, if you are reading CDO
documents that refer to the "Session" object, then you are using the old-style
stuff, if not then you are reading about the newer version.  Given the absence
of a class in the CDO package with a name like 'CDOISession', I assume that the
Dolphin implementation is a wrapper for "new" CDO ?

Incidently, if this is true, then the Package comment about "having an SMTP
server *installed*" (my emphasis) are very misleading.  You *may* have one
installed locally (if you are running W2K server, I think), but for the typical
installation, CDO would talk to your ISP's SMPT server.

It's because of that comment that I had ignored the CDO wrapper, after all I
*know* I have no SMTP server running.

    -- chris

Chris,
"Chris Uppal" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:3eba2c1d$0$45180$[hidden email]...
> Andy Bower wrote:
>
> > CDO is a
> > wrapper around Microsoft's Collaboration Data Objects which is an
> > interface to the e-mail system of MS Outlook. If you have Outlook
> > installed (not sure about Outlook Express) then sending an e-mail
> > becomes just a few simple calls.

A potential problem with CDO, though, is contending with the fixes MS
provided after the rash of e-mail viruses a year or so ago.  If you have the
Outlook E-Mail Security Update installed, you get an annoying prompt when
you try to send e-mail through CDO or the Outlook object model.  The prompt
tells you that something's trying to access your address book, and gives the
option to deny access or to permit it once or for a period of time.  There
are workarounds, both administrative (Outlook Security Admin for Exchange)
and technical (Dmitry Strebelchenko's Outlook Redemption), but it's not as
simple as it was for the folks who wrote the ILOVEYOU virus.

IIRC, CDOSYS doesn't have the same limitations, but that's not much help on
Win9x/ME.

> The MS doc seems adamant that you have to be an exchange client to use CDO
(and
> I most definitely am NOT -- I wouldn't have Outlook on my machine even it
it
> were free).  So I was very surprised to find that this does work for me.
I haven't used CDO (from Outlook or Office) or CDOSYS (CDO for Windows 2000)
outside of an Exchange-based environment much, but there are ways to get it
installed and working.  It is not, however, a straightforward process.

[...]
> (I'm running W2K -- I don't know what would happen with, say, W98)
Out of curiosity, telnet into port 25 on your W2K machine.  I just did it on
my XP system, and, to my surprise, an SMTP server answered, even though I
didn't explicitly set one up!  What a timesaver, eh?

Don

>
>     -- chris
>
>
>

Seb,
"Smalltalkiano" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:b9c9fv$hokas$[hidden email]...
[...]
>     This package, seems to be useful taking the 'hard path' of
> programatically sending an email. For usual smtp it is already fuctional,
I
> only need to add the smtp authentication requeriment in some sort of
> SMTPAuthenticatedSocket that I'm trying to implement. It's no so trivial
> because of the authentication protocol. I'm studying the RFC 2045 and 2554
> to know details to authenticate and prepare the email.
I don't suppose you could impose on the system administrator to set up a
different means of authentication?  It might require setting up SMTP service
on a different port with different settings (authentication by IP or
plain-text password if you're on a secure network).

HTH,

Don

>
>     regards,
>
> Seb

Don,

    I've solved the SMTP AUTH LOGIN protocol by now, and succesfully sent
several mails using this humble socket, so I think to develop by this way
values the effort.

    I know there is several authentication protocols like Digest-MD5,
CRAM-MD5, etc. but they are much more complex than LOGIN, and as far as I
know, the LOGIN seems to be very common between SMTP servers.

    I'm working on a little framework to easily send an e-mail from the
dolphin, right now I'm trying to send mails with attachments.

    regards,

Seb






"Don Rylander" <[hidden email]> escribió en el
mensaje news:b9duvp$ic4g4$[hidden email]...
> Seb,
> "Smalltalkiano" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
> news:b9c9fv$hokas$[hidden email]...
> [...]
> >     This package, seems to be useful taking the 'hard path' of
> > programatically sending an email. For usual smtp it is already
fuctional,
> I
> > only need to add the smtp authentication requeriment in some sort of
> > SMTPAuthenticatedSocket that I'm trying to implement. It's no so trivial
> > because of the authentication protocol. I'm studying the RFC 2045 and
2554
> > to know details to authenticate and prepare the email.
> I don't suppose you could impose on the system administrator to set up a
> different means of authentication?  It might require setting up SMTP
service

Dear Andy,

    as I see this approach of sending an e-mail is cdo.dll dependent. I
didn't find this dll on my system, perhaps it belongs to som Microsoft SMTP
server that I haven't installed?

    This could help on some server application, but I don't think could be
applicable to some final client-user application.

    If you see I misunderstood something please tell me.

    regards,

Seb


"Andy Bower" <[hidden email]> escribió en el mensaje
news:3eba2473$[hidden email]...
> Seb,
>
> >     I'm right now testing the code that you mention.
> >
> >     This package, seems to be useful taking the 'hard path' of
> > programatically sending an email. For usual smtp it is already
fuctional,
> I
> > only need to add the smtp authentication requeriment in some sort of
> > SMTPAuthenticatedSocket that I'm trying to implement. It's no so trivial
> > because of the authentication protocol. I'm studying the RFC 2045 and
2554
> > to know details to authenticate and prepare the email.
>
> I may be missing something, but if you are just trying to send emails
there
> is a much easier solution. D5 Standard Edition and above ship with a
package
> called CDO pre-installed in the image. CDO is a wrapper around Microsoft's
> Collaboration Data Objects which is an interface to the e-mail system of
MS
> Outlook. If you have Outlook installed (not sure about Outlook Express)
then
> sending an e-mail becomes just a few simple calls.
>
> There is an overview of CDO here:
>
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dncdo121/htfullName);
>         autoGenerateTextBody: true;
>         textBody: stm;
>         "mdnRequested: true;"
>         Send.
> -----
>
>

Smalltalkiano wrote:

>     as I see this approach of sending an e-mail is cdo.dll dependent.
> I didn't find this dll on my system, perhaps it belongs to som
> Microsoft SMTP server that I haven't installed?

The link that Andy posted is misleading.  Try the one that I posted.

In particular, cdo.dll etc, are *not* used by CDO for Win2K.  The dll is, IIRC,
cdosys.dll.

Also CDO for Win2K is not in any way dependent on your having an SMTP server
installed anywhere.  If you can send outgoing emails using any mail client then
you have *access* to an SMTP server somewhere on the Net (probably at your ISP
for personal machines, and -- I'd guess -- most office machines too).  If so
then CDO for Win2K will be able to talk to it.

*However*, the MS site claims that CDO for Win2K is only available for Win2K
(and XP, presumably), not for W98/95/ME.

It would have helped if Microsoft hadn't called their new facility for sending
SMTP/NNTP messages "CDO for Win2K" since it doesn't seem to have much in common
with the COM wrapper for MAPI (for talking to Exchange servers) that is also
called "CDO".

    -- chris

Don Rylander wrote:

> A potential problem with CDO, though, is contending with the fixes MS
> provided after the rash of e-mail viruses a year or so ago.  If you
> have the Outlook E-Mail Security Update installed, you get an
> annoying prompt when you try to send e-mail through CDO or the
> Outlook object model.

Interesting.  I'd have thought that they'd have put the same protection around
the Outlook *Express* configuration too, but I see no such prompt.  Of course,
CDO for Win2K only needs to touch a very little bit of the OE config (just to
find the default NNTP and SMTP servers), which is a lot less "iffy" than
reading the actual address book.

> > The MS doc seems adamant that you have to be an exchange client to
> > use CDO (and I most definitely am NOT -- I wouldn't have Outlook on
> > my machine even it it were free).  So I was very surprised to find
> > that this does work for me.
> I haven't used CDO (from Outlook or Office) or CDOSYS (CDO for
> Windows 2000) outside of an Exchange-based environment much, but
> there are ways to get it installed and working.  It is not, however,
> a straightforward process.

Eh ?  CDO for Win2K works straight out of the box on my machine.  I've never
had anything to do with Exchange, and -- as I say -- am not running an SMTP
server.

    -- chris

Chris,
"Chris Uppal" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:3ebb7a68$1$45180$[hidden email]...
[...]
> Interesting.  I'd have thought that they'd have put the same protection
around
> the Outlook *Express* configuration too, but I see no such prompt.  Of
course,
> CDO for Win2K only needs to touch a very little bit of the OE config (just
to
> find the default NNTP and SMTP servers), which is a lot less "iffy" than
> reading the actual address book.
I haven't tried accessing Outlook Express through COM, but from what I've
seen in MS newsgroups, people who do are typically surprised and frustrated
at how little of the underlying stuff is exposed.  IIRC, OE also doesn't
support scripting to the extent that Outlook does (e.g., "one-off" forms),
so I suspect there isn't the same risk.

[...]
> Eh ?  CDO for Win2K works straight out of the box on my machine.  I've
never
> had anything to do with Exchange, and -- as I say -- am not running an
SMTP
> server.
You're right.  I guess it wasn't quite clear, but I just meant to say
pre-Win2K (Win9x, NT 4) systems.  CDO for Windows 2000 (which I *believe* is
so far always synonymous with CDOSYS in MS docs) comes standard on 2K and
XP.

Don

Seb and Chris,

This whole area seems to be in a real state of flux right now.  MS seems to
be moving away from its proprietary MAPI technology and "embracing" more
standard protocols (SMTP, POP3, etc.).  No doubt the "extension" phase will
be coming soon.  It's especially annoying right now building on things like
Outlook, because you end up having so many ways of doing almost the same
things, but each has its own limitations and peculiarities.

Oh, well.

Don