Rod> Jamie, do you intend to include the second part of the patch
Rod> in BBDB distribution (the part that allows the STRING field
Rod> of the auto-notes-alist record to be a string, integer or
Rod> function) ?
Jamie> Sure, looks fine.
Joe> Here is a sma
Rod> Jamie, do you intend to include the second part of the patch
Rod> in BBDB distribution (the part that allows the STRING field
Rod> of the auto-notes-alist record to be a string, integer or
Rod> function) ?
Jamie> Sure, looks fine.
Joe> Here is a small suggestion. If
Rod> Jamie, do you intend to include the second part of the patch in
Rod> BBDB distribution (the part that allows the STRING field of the
Rod> auto-notes-alist record to be a string, integer or function) ?
Jamie> Sure, looks fine.
Here is a small suggestion. If the item is a funct
Rod Whitby wrote:
>
> Jamie, do you intend to include the second part of the patch in BBDB
> distribution (the part that allows the STRING field of the
> auto-notes-alist record to be a string, integer or function) ?
Sure, looks fine.
> If so, I will hack some more on the extract-field function
I wrote:
Rod> The first part of the patch makes the bbdb-extract-field
Rod> function stop at the start of the real message (i.e. past any
Rod> pseudo-headers such as "Archive-name:") instead of at the
Rod> formal start of the message.
Jamie writes:
Jamie> I think this is a b
Rod Whitby wrote:
>
> The first part of the patch makes the bbdb-extract-field function stop
> at the start of the real message (i.e. past any pseudo-headers such as
> "Archive-name:") instead of at the formal start of the message.
I think this is a bad idea. Lots of people forward messages suc
Jamie,
Could you please apply this patch to bbdb-hooks.el to allow the use of
pseudo-headers in the auto-notes-alist, and also to allow the STRING
field of the auto-notes-alist entry to be either a string, integer, or
a function ?
The first part of the patch makes the bbdb-extract-field
