Closed Bug 65472 Opened 20 years ago Closed 18 years ago

X-mailer in addition to User-Agent


(SeaMonkey :: MailNews: Message Display, enhancement)

Not set


(Not tracked)



(Reporter: kousik, Assigned: sspitzer)




(2 files)

From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; 0.7) Gecko/20010109

If we have pref("mailnews.headers.showUserAgent",true)
then we get to see the User-Agent in the headers. Now, there are
several mail clients (except our Mozilla, mutt to name a few)
use X-Mailer to identify themselves. Can't this happen that when
showUserAgent is true, then mozilla shows User-Agent or X-Mailer
whichever is available?

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. set pref("mailnews.headers.showUserAgent",true)
2. the User-Agent: header will appear for the mail-clients
   who put the tag in the mail header.	
it shows User-Agent as per now. Browsing source of a mail to myself i see:

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-3 i686; en-US; m18) Gecko/20010113

Do you mean it should say "X-Mailer" instead?
No.  The request is that when _reading_ mail with Mozilla it treat X-Mailer as
an alternative to User-Agent.  That is, something like:

if (mailnews.headers.showUserAgent == true) {
  if (User-Agent) {
    show (User-Agent);
  } else if (X-Mailer) {
    show (X-Mailer);

This is a valid RFE.  setting status to New.
Setting status to New for real this time.  Going to attach a proposed patch. 
adding some keywords.
Ever confirmed: true
Keywords: patch, review
I'm a bit leary about adding more xul elements in the message pane for X-mailer
support. Mostly because I've been reading (see simon's posting in the newsgroup)
that X-mailer is a deprecated header anyway....thoughts?
Don't add X-Mailer, please. It's old.
I'm voting for wontfix...someone should resolve it as so.
Keywords: review
Besides being "old" is there any other reason why X-mailer should not be used?
The reporter just wanted mail&news to display X-mailer when user-agent is not
Given that AOL e-mail still uses X-Mailer, and the commercial builds support AOL
e-mail, I think this would be a nice enhancement and a good reason for fixing
this. Example AOL X-Mailer line:

X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows AU sub 238
This seems more reasonable than displaying nothing at all if no UserAgent is
found... Any progress on this ?
*** Bug 110304 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Does the Attached patch still work ? Why cant we just check it in if it
works.... assuming the reviews and sr are there
iirc nc4 is yet another mailer that sends X-mailer. Yes it's been end of lifed, 
but that doesn't mean that people are ready to abandon it.

If you don't want an extra xul field we could abuse the one used for User-
Agent.  But, I don't think the cost of the xul box is a good reason to refuse 
to accept this.  If someone feels that it's too expensive then could that 
someone please provide numbers showing the costs of: UserAgent, 
UserAgent+Xmailer, and Xmailer for some sample of mail (plus stats indicating 
which field was actually present, since you're probably going to pay more for 
the one that was actually used...).  I know that has some usage 
stats for the Xmailer/Useragent, if someone cares I can dig for that post.
Since the whole mailnews front end got rewritten _after_ that patch was created
I seriously doubt that it still works....

Seth, could we have a call on this?  We should either WONTFIX this or fix it. 
Let's not just leave it in limbo.
As the module owner I'm not interested in supporting a deprectated header such
as X-mailer. Just go into view all header mode if you are really interested in
wontfix per module owner.
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
verified, module owner has the last say.
*** Bug 155790 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 178151 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 191945 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I really would like to see this fixed.  Let me whip up a patch.
Attachment #121384 - Flags: review?(sspitzer)
The module owner wants this to be wontfix, it makes no sense coming up with a patch.
Attachment #121384 - Flags: review?(sspitzer)
Sure it does. That way people can apply it to their local tree to bypass the
module owner's influence on their usage of Mozilla.
FYI, if you have the hidden pref set, and the message does not contain a
user-agent string, but it does contain a x-mailer then we show the x-mailer
value in place of the user-agent value. 

This is a fix I just back ported from thunderbird into mozilla mail so it is in
both now. 
It seems like Mozilla is displaying X-Mailer as the User-Agent so my Mozilla
started saying

User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000

Is this the intent? Why isn't the line above

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000

Even when I do Full Header, I see it as User-Agent instead of X-Mailer. Its only
when I do View Source do I see that its actually X-Mailer not User-Agent.

I don't like this "change". Is it acceptable to other people? 

Reopening bug since we should mark this as fixed instead of wontfix
Resolution: WONTFIX → ---
Fixed as per comment 25. Also I see the fix in my local build.
Closed: 19 years ago18 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
It looks like Outlook is still using X-mailer, even if somebody thinks it is 
old... I have the pref for useragent set to true (in moz 1.3), but guess how 
many emails I get have any useragent displayed for them. Practically zero! 
Because only Mozilla writes useragent in its outgoing emails. But everybody 
uses Outlook Express. That made the pref somehow useless. Therefore I am happy 
that were are now doing to display both useragent and x-mailer. Thanks for 
fixing this.
Product: Browser → Seamonkey
Can we get someone to actually verify this bug as fixed... ? I am having a hard
time proving it is fixed... using Thunderbird,
Nevermind I am brain dead... I just verified thid bug as fixed... (I needed to
the correct pref.js file, mailnews.js)
Yes, it has been fixed for ages. Thanks for noticing that the bug was still not
Duplicate of this bug: 272868
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.