Unique away messages to different users??

erikj3848 · Post by **erikj3848** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 11:01 pm

I would like to know if it is currently possible or ever could be to be able to have different away messages up at the same time. I would like certain people to see away message #1 and others to see away message #2 at the same time. Maybe based on groups? is this possible? thank you for your help

Post by **bgannin** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 11:08 pm

Welcome to the Forums!

AFAIK this isn't possible, if you set an away for a protocol that's what all people under that protocol (i.e., AIM or MSN, etc.) will see. Per group aways isn't possible unless the groups are by service then

Ocelot · Post by **Ocelot** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 11:33 pm

I'd imagine it would be possible in the future. I don't know if I'm alone here, but I see yahoo and aim merging at some point in the future, which would them make this request possible

....of course that could be 10 years from now, or tomorrow. So don't hold youre breath.

Post by **evands** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:22 am

Ocelot wrote:I'd imagine it would be possible in the future. I don't know if I'm alone here, but I see yahoo and aim merging at some point in the future, which would them make this request possible

....of course that could be 10 years from now, or tomorrow. So don't hold youre breath.

How would an AIM-Yahoo merger make this possible?

Post by **bgannin** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:09 am

Where exactly is this merger speculation coming from other than wild speculation? Last I saw the AOL portion of AOL/Time-Warner was losing money and trimming sails in an attempt to reach profitability and growth once more. For such a merger to happen it would require one company to purchase the other's network lock, stock, and barrel. They are too fierce a set of competitors on too many fronts to form strategic alliances. This merger would only be beneficial to fans of the service, not to the companies (where is the revenue generation or exposure generation in a combined environment such as that?)

Ocelot · Post by **Ocelot** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:31 am

I must be behind the times then. I remember reading something about it a while ago, I'll try to find the article.

Post by **bgannin** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:07 am

Definitely a while ago:

1) 2001 - AOL 'forced' to interoperability
http://yahoo.pcworld.com/yahoo/article/ ... 931,00.asp

2) 2002 - FCC allows loophole during AOL/TW merger*
http://yahoo.pcworld.com/yahoo/article/ ... 024,00.asp

That was my top minute of google searching

*the loophole is definitely valid in that AOL can show a) interoperability via alliances with Apple and others, b) changes in environment - each major protocol is gearing up towards an enterprise-level push with paid services and increased collaboration, a change that would seem to 'logically' (business logic, that is) exclude extra-network interoperability.

lankybutmacho · Post by **lankybutmacho** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:09 pm

Out of curiosity, how do things like %n work? That's basically like sending different away messages to different people. Does that happen on the sending or the receiving side? Is it one of those things that exists because AOL set it up, and we can't modify or expand on it?

Post by **evands** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:34 pm

lankybutmacho wrote:Out of curiosity, how do things like %n work? That's basically like sending different away messages to different people. Does that happen on the sending or the receiving side? Is it one of those things that exists because AOL set it up, and we can't modify or expand on it?

It happens on the receiving side. An AIM client is responsible for substituting its user's name where it sees %n.

FredAkbar · Post by **FredAkbar** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:44 am

Will the ability to send %a and have Adium (the sending end) translate it to the user's alias (or screen name if you don't have an alias set for them) ever come back? I remember when that was taken out, a long time ago...is it hard to implement now?

Post by **evands** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:54 am

We took it out because it was really confusing for a lot of people in that it wouldn't work in the serverside status messages but only in autoresponses and such.

FredAkbar · Post by **FredAkbar** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:56 am

Ay, right...oh well

...well could you like, make it so if you put %n, then Adium converts it to the alias if it's in an autoreponse or an IM, but it can just leave it alone for the server-side message since the server can handle that?...maybe have a pref for it ("Use alias instead of screenname for that whole %n thingy")...or I am just flailing around hopelessy at this point?

Post by **bgannin** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:19 am

I like flailing hopelessly

It's more work than it's worth, thus it was removed.

bcode · Post by **bcode** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 4:09 pm

I have been following this article for a while, hoping someone would convince bgannin to implement this wonderful feature. Alas, no luck. But...

I started watching this topic, because a friend of mine is in South East Asia atm, and I have not spoken to him since the Tsunami. I was hoping there was a way that when he sent me a msg, I could send a specific away message telling to check certain email, and to contact certain people that would like to hear that he is alive.

What I did find, that I should have found about a week ago, is that you may send a specific msg to a specific user when he/she comes online.

You accomplish this by setting the custom alert for the specified user. instead of speaking their name, or beeping, have Adium send a message instead. You can even have Adiom wait till that user sends an initial message, and have the response sent them. Not exactly the feature discussed, but it impossible close, and will do for my purposes... I suspect it might help one or two others as well.

I hope I am not the only one who has not looked through the custom alert list fully

On a side, my friend did leave me msg last night while I was in bed, so I am thankful to say, he is alive and well.

peace,
bcode

Post by **evands** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 5:38 pm

That's awesome that Adium was able to help you verify your friend was okay

Post by **bgannin** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:07 pm

bcode wrote:I have been following this article for a while, hoping someone would convince bgannin to implement this wonderful feature. Alas, no luck. But...

Welcome to the Forums!

It's wonderful to hear there are stories of hope and happiness coming out of this disaster and that Adium in some way is there is just nifty

It's really not a matter of convincing me or anyone else that it should be done... it's not technologically possible, the services don't allow it and we can't hack on things to the services.

bcode · Post by **bcode** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 9:33 pm

Thanks evands, I thought so too

PCheese · Post by **PCheese** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 7:25 pm

How about using an AppleScript in an autoresponse? This would involve setting a global away message (say, "leave a message"), and then the autoreply would be something like "%_customAwayFor{%n}".

I haven't looked into it (too much school stuff right now), but the main obstacle would be passing the sender of the IM to the applescript. It would be nice if Adium passed this along (maybe it does already). Otherwise, using %n might work, but only if Adium expands it before sending it to the script.

The script might work like this: you would use /setCustomAways in an IM window, which would present some dialogs asking to add/remove screennames/people and save this to a text file, for example (unless AppleScript properties work). (Problem with that is I don't know if Adium would send an IM if the return value of the AppleScript is "".) The %_customAwayFor script might pull these messages back out of the text file or the properties.

It wouldn't be easy, but it could work.

shanecavanaugh · Post by **shanecavanaugh** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:23 am

What about different away messages for different screennames?

carlj7 · Post by **carlj7** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:53 am

Here's an idea for how to revive %a: have Adium use the Alias for auto-responses, but send %n to the server for display on other clients. If you did it that way, it might become worth adding %a back into the list of options.