Kill recipients in To/Cc headers

Kill recipients in To/Cc headers

[Kai Grossjohann]

I often have to edit recipients in To/Cc headers.  For example, I
might wish to remove a recipient, or move a certain recipient from one
header to another.

But there is no convenient way to kill a recipient.  Usually, I end up
doing C-M-SPC several times, or perhaps just C-SPC C-f C-f ... C-w.

WIBNI M-k or somesuch command would kill a recipient, when in a To/Cc
header?

Kai

Re: Kill recipients in To/Cc headers

[Jonas Steverud]

Kai Grossjohann <kai@emptydomain.de> writes:

> WIBNI M-k or somesuch command would kill a recipient, when in a To/Cc
> header?

Wouldn't it be possible to implement something like kill-sexp?

(defun message-kill-recepient (NumOfRec)
 "Blah blah"
  (interactive)
  (let ((opoint (point)))
    (message-forward-receptient (or NumOfRec 1))
    (kill-region opoint (point)))) ;; IMHO, delete-region should be an option

The trick is to implement message-forward-receptient (which is a nice
side-effect of this). Is it sufficent to look for a comma or is commas
allowed in the name?

Hmm. Now that I think of it I think I've seen commans in the name part
of the adresses.

I think this goes beyond me. :-(

-- 
(        http://hem.bredband.net/steverud/        !     Wei Wu Wei     )
(        Meaning of U2 Lyrics, Roleplaying        !  To Do Without Do  )

Re: Kill recipients in To/Cc headers

[Karl Pflästerer]

On  1 Mar 2004, Kai Grossjohann <- kai@emptydomain.de wrote:

> WIBNI M-k or somesuch command would kill a recipient, when in a To/Cc
> header?

Good idea IMO.  Perhaps we could think about using M-d as shortcut?  I
wanted to post a solution but then thought about something I didn't knew
for sure at the moment: does Gnus fold addresses in the message buffer
in such a way that it splits not only between commata but also in
between one address?


   KP

-- 
If you have nothing to say on a subject, replying with a line such as,
"I agree with this." puts you in the TO:'s for all future messages, and
establishes you as "one who really cares", if not an actual expert, on
the topic at hand.         -- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail

Re: Kill recipients in To/Cc headers

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Kai Grossjohann <kai@emptydomain.de> writes:

> WIBNI M-k or somesuch command would kill a recipient, when in a To/Cc
> header?

Yes, it would.  Hm; I wonder what's the correct approach to take.
Should the command delete the address under point, or should it
delete up till the next address?  

For instance:

  To: "Some, name" <larsi@netfonds.no>, larsi@netfonds.no (Lars),
      ding@gnus.org 

If I put point on "name", I could either delete the first address and
get 

  To: larsi@netfonds.no (Lars),
      ding@gnus.org 

or delete until the next address, which would give us

  To: "Some, larsi@netfonds.no (Lars),
      ding@gnus.org 

which is spectacularly invalid.

Hm.  I think that to do this correctly, you really have to parse
RFC2822 headers, which I really don't want to do.  Again.  :-)

Perhaps something could be done with `mail-header-parse-addresses'?
That'll give us a list of addresses, and then we "only" have to match
that to the address point in "in", and "then" remove "that" "address"
"from" "the" header.
      
-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Kill recipients in To/Cc headers

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Kai Grossjohann <kai@emptydomain.de> writes:

> WIBNI M-k or somesuch command would kill a recipient, when in a To/Cc
> header?

It looks like my carefully considered followup to this message was
lost (twice; I reposted it, too), but I've made a stab at
implementing `message-delete-address', and it's total crap.

I really don't think there's any way to avoid doing Yet Another
rfc2822 parser if this has any hope of working in any sensible
manner.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Kill recipients in To/Cc headers

[Daniel Pittman]

On 17 May 2004, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> Kai Grossjohann <kai@emptydomain.de> writes:
>
>> WIBNI M-k or somesuch command would kill a recipient, when in a To/Cc
>> header?
>
> Yes, it would.  Hm; I wonder what's the correct approach to take.
> Should the command delete the address under point, or should it
> delete up till the next address?

It should act as much like 'kill-sentence' as possible, IMO, since that
is what it does over in a text-mode or fundamental-mode buffer.  Which
is to say, it should delete the address under point.

[...]

> Perhaps something could be done with `mail-header-parse-addresses'?
> That'll give us a list of addresses, and then we "only" have to match
> that to the address point in "in", and "then" remove "that" "address"
> "from" "the" header.

Whee.  Maybe it is easier to convince that function, or one like it, to
return a list of marks that represent the start and end of the address
components or something?

           Daniel

-- 
Any attempt to curb user abuse will only result in more expensive abuse.
        -- Garret Boer

Re: Kill recipients in To/Cc headers

[Kai Grossjohann]

Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net> writes:

> On 17 May 2004, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote:
>> Kai Grossjohann <kai@emptydomain.de> writes:
>>
>>> WIBNI M-k or somesuch command would kill a recipient, when in a To/Cc
>>> header?
>>
>> Yes, it would.  Hm; I wonder what's the correct approach to take.
>> Should the command delete the address under point, or should it
>> delete up till the next address?
>
> It should act as much like 'kill-sentence' as possible, IMO, since that
> is what it does over in a text-mode or fundamental-mode buffer.

I think this is not a good idea -- it would create invalid addresses.

> Which is to say, it should delete the address under point.

M-k deletes from point to end of sentence...

Kai

Re: Kill recipients in To/Cc headers

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net> writes:

> It should act as much like 'kill-sentence' as possible, IMO, since that
> is what it does over in a text-mode or fundamental-mode buffer.  Which
> is to say, it should delete the address under point.

I've now implemented this.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Kill recipients in To/Cc headers

[Danny Siu]

I think "C-c ESC k message-kill-address" is using it, right?

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes:

  Lars> Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net> writes:
  >> It should act as much like 'kill-sentence' as possible, IMO, since that
  >> is what it does over in a text-mode or fundamental-mode buffer.  Which
  >> is to say, it should delete the address under point.

  Lars> I've now implemented this.

  Lars> -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  Lars>   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

-- 
Danny Dick-Fung Siu              mailto:dsiu@adobe.com
Advanced Technology Group @ Adobe Systems Incorporated

Re: Kill recipients in To/Cc headers

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Danny Siu <dsiu@adobe.com> writes:

> I think "C-c ESC k message-kill-address" is using it, right?

Yup.  `C-c M-k' isn't the easiest keystroke to use, though.  Anybody
got a suggestion for a better key?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen