Topic RSS
11:32 am
I hope no one have asked this before, try to search at the forum but no one asked this spesific
I read that its to large to pass the message body as parameter, but
- How to get the message body if the message is short?
I dont know how to use the massageid to get the messagebody, the file in .thunderbird is too big and in one file and i dont know how to extract data from it using messageid.
Please help how to get the message body?
I need the body to run script, the massage body maybe only have 5 word in it with 2 fixed word at the front
Thank You.
I wish there was an easy way to get the message body, but I have not found one. The problem is that the methods required to get the message body all work using async processing, but the search terms and filter actions are really best suited to sync processing.
I am guessing that what you are looking for is the message body in a filter action. My standard Run custom action does not support that. The next easiest thing to try would be writing a Javascript filter action using FiltaQuilla's javascript action. The basic steps would be that you need to stream the message, get the stream, and extract the body from that. Both normal message streaming and normal message MIME processing (which extracts the body) are async operations. Do you have any familiarity with Mozilla platform programming? If so, you might be able to get around this by 1) streaming to as nsISyncStreamListener (which attempts to bypass the async nature of steam message), then scanning the message yourself to locate the body as the stuff after \r\n\r\n. This would be around 10 lines of javascript. But nsISyncStreamListener is a risky function, I tried to use it to get the message in a search term, and that caused crashes. I think that a filter action would be more forgiving, but I have not tested is. If that does not work, you would need to write an extension, and that could probably do what you want.
Sorry that I don't have an easy answer for you. I realize that this is a desired feature.
1:49 am
Hi
I have a similar question, but it would be enough for me to have a filter action that saved the current message as an .eml file in a given folder (like the save attachment action). Is that possible?
At the moment the only way I can see to do this is to set Thunderbird to forward emails as attachments. Then set a rule to forward the desired email to myself, and then have another rule that finds the forwarded copy and saves out the .eml attachment…
It would be much simpler if there was an action to save the message as .eml!
Any ideas gratefully received…
Many thanks – Robert
Saving the message as a file is not difficult, as there is an existing backend method in the message service that supports this. The issue will be deciding where to store the file, and what to call it. I suppose in a filter, I would allow the user to select the storage folder, then save the file using probably the escaped messageID as the name.
Is that enough for your application, or do you need some method to trigger an external application that the new message exists? (I suppose an external application could just watch the storage folder for new files).
rkent
4:52 am
Hi
Many thanks.
With the method I am using at the moment (using forward as attachment) then the name of the file is the subject line of the message + .eml and that's fine for me (I can use the subject line then in the watching application)
Yes in a filter just the location for the file to be saved to… the same as for the "Save Attachment" action. Maybe an option to use the subject line or the unique message id or a given name would be useful for other people…
Yes, I am using a watcher application that monitors the folder… so I have some filter rules that use "Save Attachment" which then saves the attachments from some messages to the watched folder. But I have some cases where there is just an html body of the message instead of say an attachment – I can pull this out of the .eml file in the watcher app.
best regards – Robert
I don't have any ideas. But the save attachments filter function uses an older backend call that is also used I believe by the core code (unlike detach, which is a function that was added to core by me in 3.1 to support FiiltaQuilla's detach filter.)
So does a manual SaveAs also fail for these same messages?
12:54 am
Yes (manually as well) … I will try detach. My guess would be that .eml attachments are seen as different (as they may be forwarded messages) and are thus being ignored. A message with an .eml and another attchment, saves the other attachment not the eml…
Thanks – Robert
PS just tried Detach manually with the same result… a message with two eml attachments and one other non-eml attachment saves only the non-eml attachment (Detach seems to leave the attachment in the message, but doesn't repeat if it's done it once already?)
2:28 pm
rkent said:
I wish there was an easy way to get the message body, but I have not found one. The problem is that the methods required to get the message body all work using async processing, but the search terms and filter actions are really best suited to sync processing.
I am guessing that what you are looking for is the message body in a filter action. My standard Run custom action does not support that. The next easiest thing to try would be writing a Javascript filter action using FiltaQuilla's javascript action. The basic steps would be that you need to stream the message, get the stream, and extract the body from that. Both normal message streaming and normal message MIME processing (which extracts the body) are async operations. Do you have any familiarity with Mozilla platform programming? If so, you might be able to get around this by 1) streaming to as nsISyncStreamListener (which attempts to bypass the async nature of steam message), then scanning the message yourself to locate the body as the stuff after \r\n\r\n. This would be around 10 lines of javascript. But nsISyncStreamListener is a risky function, I tried to use it to get the message in a search term, and that caused crashes. I think that a filter action would be more forgiving, but I have not tested is. If that does not work, you would need to write an extension, and that could probably do what you want.
Sorry that I don't have an easy answer for you. I realize that this is a desired feature.
How much would you charge to have your ext, save incoming mails to a folder as a action?
I spent a few minutes looking at this request and the code that might be required. It is not trivial, but I believe it could be done with a custom filter action under FiltaQuilla. As a rough estimate, I would say it would take about $300 to do this.
Here is how I like to proceed in these cases, if you are interested. If the rough estimate of $300 is in the general range of what you are able to pay, then I would put additiional effort into this to be able to give you a firm estimate (which generally means doing about half of the work, and convincing myself it is doable at all). Then I would give you a firm price for the finished work. You would pay the firm price (through PayPal for example) and I would finish and deliver an updated version of FiltaQuilla that contains this option. If there are issues with the result from your perspective, I would (within reason) fix the issues at no additional charge.
If you would like to proceed in this manner, please inform me. I would need to know just a little more about who you are – like your organizational affiliation and where you live – just so that I know I am dealing with a real person. You can always email to me directly at rkent@mesquilla.com
rkent
Most Users Ever Online: 18
Currently Online:
11 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 130
Members: 565
Moderators: 1
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 7
Topics: 231
Posts: 802
Newest Members: Matteo, p.dobrogost, gaute, Mythobeast, terry, Livraria Notre Dame
Moderators: rkent (323)
Administrators: rkent (323)
Log In
Register
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Quote
Offline

Recent Comments