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
From: [author name]
To: [to field recipient full names, semi-colon separated]
Cc: [if any CC recipient full names, semi-colon separated]
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.
On 10/6/2012, Uday Reddy wrote: