Re: Thunderbird and Firefox

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb%cs.columbia.edu@localhost>]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 20:13:18 +0100
Bernd Ernesti <netbsd%lists.veego.de@localhost> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:03:05PM +0000, David Brownlee wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> > 
> > >On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 18:08:38 +0100
> > >Bernd Ernesti <netbsd%lists.veego.de@localhost> wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 02:56:27PM +0000, David Brownlee wrote:
> > >>[..]
> > >>
> > >>> Would anyone object to having this set by default in the
> > >>>pkgsrc package?
> > >>
> > >>It depends. Yes, if this means that firefox would be opened as
> > >>soon as start reading a mail which uses http or any of the other
> > >>protocols.
> > >
> > >I don't think that that's what it would do.  It's only activated
> > >if you click on a link within the email.
> > 
> >     Exactly. Sorry - I should have made that clear in my initial
> >     email. Given that... any objections?
> 
> Not really, but I don't think that hard coding firefox here is a good
> idea. You leave out other browsers.

Right -- this is a problem.  Unfortunately, the Thunderbird folks
haven't exposed this in their GUI.  We certainly should not do that via
our patches.  We thus have several choices:

        Do nothing.  Anyone who wants clicking on links to work has to
        hand-edit something, per-user or (I assume) per-site.

        Make the proposed change.  Anyone who wants a different browser
        or no browser has to hand-edit something, as above.

        Find some way -- the options framework? -- to let sites set
        their own default.

I don't know how to do #3 in any rational form, though I'll defer to
those who know pkgsrc better comment further.  I do know that
interactive installs (i.e., where the person doing the installation is
prompted for an answer) is a non-starter.

Of #1 and #2, how many people do you think want (a) firefox, (b) some
other browser; (c) nothing?  Your answer should be weighted by the
importance of getting it right.

My preference is #1, plus a MESSAGE file warning the administrator what
file to edit to change the site default.  I'm willing to be persuaded
otherwise.
> 
> > >>There should be a way to disable this support, so people who just
> > >>want to read mails and not to bother with links in it will not be
> > >>caught by starting a browser.
> 
> And what about this part?
> 
See above.


                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb