Type of HTML in sig scripts (was Re: [Evolution] signature script)

2005-11-25 Thread Ron Johnson
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 16:27 +0930, Iain Buchanan wrote: > OK, I've been trying to hit this on the head once and for all. Even > though this is getting OT, I'd like some help :) > > So, signature *scripts* must output in html. So I'm doing something > simple in perl: [snip] > 5 print " > 6 --

Re: [Evolution] signature script

2005-11-24 Thread Iain Buchanan
OK, I've been trying to hit this on the head once and for all. Even though this is getting OT, I'd like some help :) So, signature *scripts* must output in html. So I'm doing something simple in perl: -- 1 #!/usr/bin/perl -w 2 3 use strict; 4 5 print " 6 -- 7 Iain Buchanan

Re: [Evolution] signature script

2005-11-21 Thread Iain Buchanan
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 21:30 +0100, guenther wrote: > Please, feel free to file a bug report. :) done, and done. http://bugs.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=322090 > > They need to be html so that no matter what format the user chooses in > > the *HTML* editor, they will be formatted correctly. > > > >

Re: [Evolution] signature script

2005-11-21 Thread guenther
> They need to be html so that no matter what format the user chooses in > the *HTML* editor, they will be formatted correctly. > > :) Jeff, I was about to post the same -- when I realized, this does work for static signatures. Yes, using the very same *HTML* editor. ;-) My static signature wit

Re: [Evolution] signature script

2005-11-21 Thread Jeffrey Stedfast
They need to be html so that no matter what format the user chooses in the *HTML* editor, they will be formatted correctly. :) Jeff On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 20:42 +0100, guenther wrote: > > > Evolution expects the generated signature to be html. > > > > I found that out too, to my chagrin. > > >

Re: [Evolution] signature script

2005-11-21 Thread guenther
> > Evolution expects the generated signature to be html. > > I found that out too, to my chagrin. > > *Why* do they have to be HTML files? You just blew my mind. Actually, this is a very good question. My static signature is text/plain, too. So why is this different for signature scripts? Pl

Re: [Evolution] signature script

2005-11-18 Thread Ron Johnson
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 09:48 +0100, Christian Borup wrote: > On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 15:15 +0930, Iain Buchanan wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 23:16 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 14:00 +0930, Iain Buchanan wrote: > > > > > > Or do I need one copy of the script for each mail

Re: [Evolution] signature script

2005-11-18 Thread Christian Borup
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 15:15 +0930, Iain Buchanan wrote: > On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 23:16 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 14:00 +0930, Iain Buchanan wrote: > > > > Or do I need one copy of the script for each mail account? > > > What if when you specify the script name, you add a

Re: [Evolution] signature script

2005-11-17 Thread Iain Buchanan
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 23:16 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 14:00 +0930, Iain Buchanan wrote: > > Or do I need one copy of the script for each mail account? > What if when you specify the script name, you add a parameter? Hmm, good idea, but "add script" seems to ignore newline

Re: [Evolution] signature script

2005-11-17 Thread Ron Johnson
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 14:00 +0930, Iain Buchanan wrote: > Hi, > > I have a signature script that writes to a fifo ~/.signature which > evolution uses for the signature file. > > However, I wanted to use a similar script (one only) for all my mail > accounts. Instead of having multiple copies of

[Evolution] signature script

2005-11-17 Thread Iain Buchanan
Hi, I have a signature script that writes to a fifo ~/.signature which evolution uses for the signature file. However, I wanted to use a similar script (one only) for all my mail accounts. Instead of having multiple copies of the script, and fifo, I thought I'd make one, and get rid of the fifo.