Howto add a vnc URL handler to Icedove?
I want to make things easier for people accepting remote desktop
invitations from Krfb.
Ideal scenario:-
1. Create a reverse ssh tunnel to "middle" (an internet accessible
server) from the "users" computer. e.g. port 1234 to port 1235
"middle" has port forwarding enabled e.g. port 1234 to port 1236, and
the reverse ssh tunnel creation is automated (KMenu entry for Krfb
modified to call a script, that starts the reverse ssh tunnel before
calling Krfb).
2. The "user" then sends an (encrypted) email invitation from Krfb[*1]
to the "support" - and waits for support to connect (which then requires
the "user" to allow "support" access).
3. "support" then opens the email in Icedove, clicks on the link[*2],
Icedove uses a script to handle the link, which then processes[*3] the
link before calling krdc (or tightvnc) - which then gives "support"
remote access to the "users" desktop.
Ideal outcome:-
Quick and easy remote desktop support even when both the "user" and
"support" are behind NAT firewalls.
[*1] Krfb is set to use port 1235
[*2] e.g. vnc://invitation:CPcz-G7E@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:xxxx
There /appears/ to be two problems which I'd like suggestions on how to
solve:-
1. while the link displays as show above, in the HTML (subset used in
email) it's actually a mailto link...
2. I've tried adding to Icedove about:config:-
;a new string value of "network.protocol-handler.app.vnc" with the value
"$processingScript %U"
;a new boolean value "network.protocol-handler.expose.vnc" with the
value "true"
But I suspect they'll never be called as Icedove treats the link as "mailto"
Google yields nothing, nor does the Mozilla developer documentation, and
the same question has previously been posted to Mozilla forums,
carefully described, by someone else - but has never received an answer.
So I ask the question here, knowing that there are some informed list
readers who might have useful suggestions.
Kind regards
--
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you
know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Reply to: