re: why not use vm-included-text-headers? Obviously I'm trying to be difficult. :)
Actually, I wasn't aware of that variable. Setting it has solved my attribution problem. Thanks Uday! On 10/22/2012, Uday Reddy wrote: > Kyle Farrell writes: > > > 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 included-text-attribution-format was never meant for producing elaborate > headers. > > Why don't you use vm-included-text-headers, which is what is meant for doing > this kind of thing? > > In any case, in the trunk version of VM, I have stripped out the CC > recipients from %t and %T specifiers, and added new specifiers %r and %R for > all recipients. There are independent reasons for doing this change. (I > think that in the old days, there weren't enough fields in the cached data > header to keep 'to' recipients separately. It was an unnecessary > limitation.) > > Cheers, > Uday >
