Fucking Apple.

Irritating new misfeature in desktop Mail.app! If you type the characters "shitfuck@example.com" in a message, what gets sent is instead "shitfuck@example.com <mailto:shitfuck@example.com>"

Even if the message is plain text, not rich text.

It also adds this nonsense if you type "jwz.org".

But not if you type "https://www.jwz.org/" -- however in that case it does helpfully auto-capitalize the "Https" for you.

I can't find any way to turn this off. You have to option-click on the link and select "Link / Remove Link" on each one to get it to send what you actually typed.

This is going to irritate me as much as the fact that the "On DATE, NAME wrote:" line is inside the quoted-text block instead of outside.

Previously.

Tags: , , ,

17 Responses:

  1. Scott Lewis says:
    15

    This works for me on Mac OS 13: in a composition window, right click the body, go down to "Substitutions" and turn off "Smart Links".

    • jwz says:
      3

      Thank you!!

      • Dan says:
        10

        See, you just never know.  I thought about mentioning this, but usually when someone suggests something this obvious (especially when you've said "I can't find any way to turn this off") it results in a thorough roasting.

        • dzm says:
          4

          A solid roasting is the risk you run. Some rules to avoid avoid a solid roasting:

          1. Make sure your solution is an actual solution and not a fishing trip

          You might get slightly better odds of avoiding a solid roasting with "Don't insult the host," but that seems more optional than the numbered rules above.

  2. anelki says:
    1

    if you'll excuse an unsolicited suggestion, if you would be interested in trying a different mail program, MailMate (https://freron.com/) has been really solid for me since I switched to it in 2018. None of the garbage Apple Mail does, the person who develops it responds to user concerns, and it's all keyboard driven. you write using markdown.

    • dzm says:
      1

      Seconded, mostly. MailMate offers really strong search/smart folder capabilities (and it's search is wicked fast). Unfortuantely I had to stop using it (at least for corporate email) due to the author's very firm positions on:

      • Native Office365 protocol support is a non starter. IMAP, POP, or nothing. Deal with it. (He's not wrong, but trying to convince the corporate overlords to re-enable IMAP support on Office365 is a waste of time.)
      • Concession to styled email is "Yeah, there's Markdown support." My colleagues at the office can't wrap their heads around plaintext email of minimally styled (Markdown -> HTML auto-conversion). I believe, for email where styling is REALLY critical, it supports HTML composition in some other program and then copy/pasting the raw HTML into the email. I never fussed with this though.

      Both of these made it unusable for my main MUA, but I highly recommend it to anyone on macOS that can live with these restrictions.

      • memecode says:

        I can understand his position, having to write a specific module just to talk to one particular service provider (Office365) is pretty insane. I mean that's why we HAVE imap and so on. So that one client can talk to 'n' different servers. Both Microsoft and Google (and probably others) think that they are so huge that they expect email client authors to write specific code for their service. We however do not actually want to do that. Even if we did, getting the right documentation on HOW is typically a huge PITA.

        • dzm says:
          1

          I'm not saying he's wrong. I wholly support his position. None-the-less, it prevents his MUA from being used in many corporate environments. He can be right and have a fantastic product AND still have a product that fails.

          When I have approached our IT director to please, for the love of god, re-enable IMAP the answer I received is "IMAP is a legacy protocol that is inherently insecure. So much so that both Microsoft and Google automatically disable it for their business suite services. We will not enable it." When pressed on "ok, WHY is IMAP so insecure?" they get all shifty and talk about credentials in plain text, or lack of password-stuffing protections, or any one of a dozen other dumb falsehoods. When presented with "START-TLS" and "Enable OAuth 2" or "Issue personal certificates to your users and use PKIP authentication" the emails (ironically) go unanswered.

          When talking to a friend who is the CISO for a small medical org in the Bay Area and asking "OK, you're making these decisions for your org. Why do you disable IMAP?" his answer is equally as bad: "It's well known to be insecure, and disabling this legacy protocol lowers the attack surface for my org. I tell my users that they must use Outlook; it obviously supports the Microsoft OWA/EWS protocols, and my life is easier for not having to support any random email client."

          I bought a license MailMate. I pre-funded/donated to his v2 development effort (I wonder if that ever shipped). I want his MUA to succeed because of the amazing about of power his search/smart folders brings to the table. But if his position is "I will only support open protocols" and the protocols he insists on are actively discriminated against by ill-informed admins then, ultimately, his product will not succeed (well - I suppose it depends on what his definition of "success" is. Maybe "I get to noodle around in the code in the evenings and I make enough in license revenue to buy a beer for every night of the week," then I guess he CAN be successful).

          • memecode says:

            I hear you. It's frustrating. Clearly Microsoft has an agenda here, the classic embrace, extend and then extinguish. If they can move people onto proprietary protocols and software they achieve vendor lock in. Control of both the server and the client.

            Google does the exact same thing. Currently they say they support IMAP but when you try and actually support OAUTH2 you run into conflicting scope issues, what they advise you to do throws at error at runtime and what actually works scope wise isn't acceptable to their verification team as being "too broad" a scope. So they limit the global number of connections your client can make to like a 100 or something. And then they suggest using their internal APIs. Because of course they do.

            And talking about "Fcking Apple" I got an email from a mac user this morning saying that on the latest dev version of Ventura it claims that my client is malware and will damage your computer. Which is certainly an escalation from the standard "blah is from an unsigned developer..." They keep building that wall on their garden higher and higher... sigh.

            • jwz says:

              For a developer who is distributing macOS binaries to not have those binaries signed by Apple is not a great sign. It says that the developer is not terribly concerned about their users' experience with the program.

              Yes, it's a pain in the ass. But if you want to ship binaries on macOS, you have to do it. If you don't want to do it, perhaps shipping macOS binaries is not what you should be doing.

    • Eric TF Bat says:

      I just helped a reluctant Mac user to switch to MS Outlook because Mail was so nunbuggeringly useless.  If I'd known about this, I could have used it instead and avoided the terrible feelings of guilt.  Bravo!

  3. Cormac says:
    1

    It's still not as bad as what IBMs mail system did when I worked there. It would routinely take a pasted email address or http link, colour it blue, underline it and keep it as text. For the first month after we were forced to switch to it, I wasted about an hour a day trying clicking on fake hyperlinks before having to select and copy it.

  4. room34 says:

    Trying to solve this may be a lost cause; depending on the recipient’s mail service and/or app, it will probably be done on the receiving end anyway. (I regrettably am semi-locked into Google’s ecosystem where email is concerned and I’ve just had to give up fighting this one.)

  5. NB says:
    1

    I didn't realise Apple Mail did this when I sent a PGP-signed message and blamed the corporate Exchange server for mucking up the signature's validity about year ago. Being wrong in the resulting argument with the mail server admin wasn't fun at all.

  6. Paul Hoffman says:

    God bless Scott Lewis for a correct answer. And a random blessing to jwz, since I saw this and remembered it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. But if you provide a fake email address, I will likely assume that you are a troll, and not publish your comment.

Starting a new top-level thread.

  • Previously