... [.mailrc fragment omitted] > I have some problems parsing your problem. > > Please note first that the # comment sign on a line does not > create a shell-style comment, the above are all (somewhat > ignored, however) errors.
Interesting. I have reread the man page for heirloom-mailx, and I did not have much luck finding documentation of the format. As you may have guessed, my .mailrc is very hold. I likely wrote my first .mailrc over 35 years ago. > Having said all that i have learned that Heirloom mailx 12.5 is no > longer supported in Debian (for quite some time)? Are you sure > you are really using 12.5? Yes: $ heirloom-mailx -V 12.5 6/20/10 I do have s-nail v14.9.25 installed on my system, but interestingly it is not offered as an implementation of `mailx`: $ update-alternatives --list mailx /usr/bin/bsd-mailx /usr/bin/heirloom-mailx /usr/bin/mail.mailutils /usr/bin/mh/mhmail I'm not sure whether s-nail is considered incompatible with mailx or if that's just an omission. > Note: it MAY depend upon what content you have placed in Cc: -- > because of the fix for CVE-2014-7844 [1] you may have to set the > *expandaddr* variable, you definitely have to do this for S-nail. I checked this out and no, it's not the issue. Confirmed via test. It appears that my best course of action will be to see about migrating to s-nail. (I have the "`-a` for attachment" semantics too deeply embedded into my fingers to wish to migrate to bsd-mailx.) > (I know for sure your "8-bit in alias names" is still a hacky > solution for S-nail.) I'm sorry—I don't know what you mean by 8-bit in alias names. What does that maean? And What part of my .mailrc suggested that I am doing it? Norman
