Re: [VM] vm-included-text-attribution-format and CC line

[Kyle Farrell]

Sorry for the late reply on this.  I'm noticing two hurdles in trying
to conform to Outlook attribution.  First off, here is the Outlook
attribution format:


From: [author name]
Sent: [date]
To: [to field recipient full names, semi-colon separated]
Cc: [if any CC recipient full names, semi-colon separated]
Subject: [subject]


I can get pretty close to that with:
(setq vm-included-text-attribution-format "\n:From: %F\nSent: %w, %m %d, %y 
%h\nTo: %T\nSubject: %s\n\n")

The first thing would be separating the "To:" recipients from the
"CC:" list.  The %T field groups them all together.  If I could supply
an attribution format that has the CC list conditionally present (ie-
do not display if no CC recipients) that would be cool, but I could
get by without that behavior.  I can live without that, I'd really
just like to breakout the CC list from the To list.

The other thing is the %T field uses a comma separated list which
makes the Outlook name format of "last, first" difficult to parse with
multiple recipients (Outlook does not surround names with quotes).  So
if I reply to "Smith, Bob" and "Doe, John", that will produce a
recipient list like: "Smith, Bob, Doe, John" (again, the quotes are
not in the actual email).  This is confusing since everything is comma
separated.  If I had the option of speciyfing the separator that would
be one way of doing it.

Looks like a lot of this stuff is in or around vm-su-do-recipients.  I
haven't played around with that yet.

So what I'd like to do is have something like:

(setq vm-summary-fields-concat-string ("; ")
(setq vm-included-text-attribution-format "\n:From: %F\nSent: %w, %m %d, %y 
%h\nTo: %O\nCC: %C\nSubject: %s\n\n")

That would introduce a new variable (vm-summary-fields-concat-string)
to override the default ", " concat string.  Then I used %O to
identify the To: field and %C to identify the CC recipients.  The %O
is a but unfortunately named with %T taken.

-Kyle




On 10/6/2012, Uday Reddy wrote:
> Kyle Farrell writes:
> 
> > For better or worse, I'm trying to get my attribution format to match
> > Outlook (sorry!).  
> 
> Hi Kyle, what is the Outlook attribution format?
> 
> > I can nearly get it, but one thing that seems
> > missing is differentiating "To" and "CC" receipients.  The "%T" format
> > contains all recipients:
> > 
> >    T - full names of the recipients of the message, in a comma-separated 
> > list
> >        If a full name cannot be found, the corresponding address is used
> >        instead.
> > 
> > Using this the attribution is incorrect since I'd list all recipients
> > as "To:".  Is there a format to get only "To" and only "CC"
> > recipients?  
> 
> I think the original design of the specifiers was probably not ideal.  
> 
> If you can look through the manual section on the Summary Format and suggest
> a solution, I can implement it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Uday
>