Discussion on Gmail Multiple Signatures, plus Float | Userscripts.org

Archived Comments, replied by enmi @ Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:22:36 -0600

enmi — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:22:36 -0600

chefscotticus - Would you be interested in a freelance project regarding Greasemonkey scripts? If so, please let me know where I could email you off-forum. I can be reached at: esung@post.harvard.edu

Archived Comments, replied by JHS @ Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:55:36 -0600

JHS — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:55:36 -0600

I don't know why GMail did this update - maybe to stop the float?(which is the most excellent update I have ever seen)

Put this shortcut on your Nav. bar and it saves a step.

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=1

Archived Comments, replied by sutton @ Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:29:16 -0500

sutton — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:29:16 -0500

Yes, "use older version" in the upper-right-hand corner makes it work again. Thanks!

Archived Comments, replied by Jordan K @ Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:31:14 -0500

Jordan K — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:31:14 -0500

The script is most likely broken due to the new version of Gmail being implemented. Check to see if there is a link to use "Older Version". If there is you can use the Older Version in the meantime until Google releases documentation for the scripters.

Archived Comments, replied by sutton @ Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:46:58 -0500

sutton — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:46:58 -0500

Aaaaand... it's broken.

I tried switching "window.frames[1]" back to "window.frames[0]." No apparent dice.

Any ideas? Man, I spent so long getting it to work...

Archived Comments, replied by sutton @ Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:43:41 -0500

sutton — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:43:41 -0500

Hi, does anyone know if it is possible to make some words in your signature a different color? I'm successfully running the script, but want to know what the syntax would look like (if it's even possible) to make one word or several words red while leaving the rest black. Also, am I correct that there is no way to use apostrophes in the text of one's signature, since the script reads these as code?

Archived Comments, replied by merrowman @ Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:38:51 -0500

merrowman — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:38:51 -0500

I'm having a problem with this script in that it works with plain text but not rich formatting... Has anyone figured out a fix to this?

Archived Comments, replied by Michael Devore @ Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:25:46 -0500

Michael Devore — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:25:46 -0500

Well, maybe next month.

Archived Comments, replied by Michael Devore @ Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:10:12 -0500

Michael Devore — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:10:12 -0500

I have some stuff on my plate now, but if nothing/nobody else moves on this feature in the next week, I'll take another look at it.

The script is probably slagged one or two other places I can't remember, but a few of the comments in the original lifehacker post are certainly worth an eye-roll, at http://lifehacker.com/software/email/download-o...

The best quote I see at a glance is this:

"Gotta agree on this one. This GM script just contributes to the degradation of what little netiquette we have left. GMail does the right thing by putting the sig at the bottom, and YES thos two dashes are indeed there for a reason - read above....."

So there you go, chefscotticus, you have "contributed to the degradation" of the Internet. I'd feel proud about that, were I you.

Archived Comments, replied by chefscotticus @ Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:40:30 -0500

chefscotticus — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:40:30 -0500

"Otherwise, you will probably annoy people who hate the chefscotticus script since it lends support to e-mail top-quoting. This includes people who have berated it on a public forum highlighting the new script, apparently oblivious to the fact that chefscotticus's idea for revision was sufficiently popular to receive ~1000 downloads in one month."

Hahaha. Where are said people? I want to read their vitriol!

Archived Comments, replied by chefscotticus @ Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:30:54 -0500

chefscotticus — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:30:54 -0500

Sure, Michael. I have no priorities other than for the script to be as useful as possible to those of us using it. Feel free to add/modify as you see fit.

Archived Comments, replied by Michael Devore @ Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:55:25 -0500

Michael Devore — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:55:25 -0500

Helping a script user with a semi-painful tech support session tonight that should have only taken a few minutes reminded me of an idea for the chefscotticus script that I think should be considered.

I think the script should be modified such that users could select their e-mail addresses, colors, and signatures interactively via a dialog box, or at least via about:config settings, rather than by directly modifying the script's code. This change would make using the script less painful than requiring coding changes -- a difficult task for nonprogrammers to do correctly, especially if they have embedded single or double quotes or other miscellany in their script to add to the confusion. The change also would mean that users could install the script directly from this site and have it actually do useful things right out of the box.

However, I'm very reluctant to fork Yet Another Version of the script, particularly since the original script author publicly asked for comments about merging in code from this chefscotticus variant.

So I say, chefscotticus, what do you think about sponsoring another modification to your script as an update? Keeping the modification here maintains the same script fork count and, I think, should keep your script popular in the downloads (assuming you care about that).

Archived Comments, replied by Charlie Redell @ Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:42:15 -0500

Charlie Redell — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:42:15 -0500

whoops, that didn't work. what I typed came out as garbage.... ah well. Anyway, what you added to the script made it more clear.
thanks,
c

Archived Comments, replied by Charlie Redell @ Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:41:14 -0500

Charlie Redell — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:41:14 -0500

Phew. Thanks for that. I still had to fiddle around to figure out the exact right syntax(I have four signatures and addresses) but I got it working now.

For future releases, you may want to word the directions for how to edit the script to read like this:

Each signature corresponds to one email address.
The syntax for a signature is as follows:
'<text>\\n' +
'<text><text><text>

Anyway, thanks for the update and the clarification and the script. Works exactly as I want it to now.

c</text>

Archived Comments, replied by chefscotticus @ Thu, 31 May 2007 08:12:06 -0500

chefscotticus — Thu, 31 May 2007 08:12:06 -0500

Per request below:

31 May 2007: Updated documentation with script to better reflect where the user must edit the script to use it.

Archived Comments, replied by Shadrach @ Fri, 25 May 2007 15:25:16 -0500

Shadrach — Fri, 25 May 2007 15:25:16 -0500

I like the combination of the two scripts. However, it seems that when replying, the "Float" part of the script, does not reloacate the use of the "Multiple" part of the script to the top.

I do have GTDInbox extension installed. In case that makes any difference.

Other than that, works great as advertised.

Archived Comments, replied by Charlie Redell @ Tue, 22 May 2007 16:18:59 -0500

Charlie Redell — Tue, 22 May 2007 16:18:59 -0500

Ok. I may not be the world's most techo-proficient person. But I can get myself into a computer or program and generally screw around until I figure out how to make it work the way I want to but I can not for the life of me get this script to do what it is supposed to.
I know I have to go into the script itself and edit it to get my email address to be choosable. When I type my emails into the email array, they show up on the compose page.
But what is the correct format for putting in the multiple signatures into the sig array? Anytime I have put them in there, the choice of emails on my gmail compose screen goes away.

What I am looking for is someone to point out the variables in sig array that need to be changed and what to add to get more than two different signatures.

Thanks!

Archived Comments, replied by chefscotticus @ Fri, 18 May 2007 23:21:40 -0500

chefscotticus — Fri, 18 May 2007 23:21:40 -0500

Per Andrew's prescription below:

18 May 2007: Updated to reflect changes in Gmail's code. Replaced all instances (there are two) of "window.frames[0]" with "window.frames[1]".

Archived Comments, replied by Michael Devore @ Fri, 18 May 2007 13:21:22 -0500

Michael Devore — Fri, 18 May 2007 13:21:22 -0500

No-effort fixes are my favorite type of fix.

Well, no effort on my part.

Archived Comments, replied by Andrew Janssen @ Fri, 18 May 2007 13:06:19 -0500

Andrew Janssen — Fri, 18 May 2007 13:06:19 -0500

For the fix, see my comment at http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/1592

Archived Comments, replied by Michael Devore @ Thu, 17 May 2007 15:48:01 -0500

Michael Devore — Thu, 17 May 2007 15:48:01 -0500

I hacked out the logic used in this version from the original script, so maybe I can hack out a fix for it. Busy this weekend, but if nobody else comes up with a fix in the next couple of days, I'll see whether some basic tweakage will re-fix things early next week. If we're lucky there isn't a major rewrite of logic involved.

Any nonobvious further information on the failure or examples would be great, assuming it's even necessary. I don't actually use the script myself, just do testing before release.

Archived Comments, replied by Tim Jervis @ Thu, 17 May 2007 05:47:31 -0500

Tim Jervis — Thu, 17 May 2007 05:47:31 -0500

Unfortunately this script appears to be broken today. There's a similar problem with its ancestor, as though a change in the gmail code has broken the hack.

Archived Comments, replied by Jesse Andrews @ Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:05:32 -0600

Jesse Andrews — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:05:32 -0600

The following is an archive of comments made before threaded discussions was implemented (November 16th, 2008)