Yes, because the attachments are generated by scripts then put into different folders. Each receiver has different amount of attachments. redirect mail attachments to a single file is more easy than use "-a file1 file2" I plan to use mail -s "Subject" recei...@example.com < att.email (This attachment is readable in hotmail, but mutt don't) but have some problem by setting the mail header. only thing I wanna to do is change the from address to another mailbox.
Zhang Qi On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Ed Blackman <e...@edgewood.to> wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:15:33PM +0200, Jostein Berntsen wrote: >> >> On 11.05.10,15:50, Qi Zhang wrote: >>> >>> # code >>> uuencode file_name file_name > att.email >>> >>> cat mail_message >> att.email >>> >>> mutt -s "Subject" recei...@somewhere.net < att.email >>> >>> with this script, I can send email with attachment very easy. and >>> gmail users have no problem reading these. >>> BUT, with some mail providers or clients can not read the attachments >>> correctly. >>> what they can see is only code like @#$!...@$!#!@#...@# >>> >>> Please somebody know what should I do to fix this problem? >> >> Can you check with another file ending, like att.txt instead of att.email? > > Since he's using shell redirects, that shouldn't matter: mutt can't use the > extension to set the file type since it has no chance to see the extension. > > My question is why do it that way at all? The command "mutt -s 'Subject' > -i mail_message -a file1 file2 ... -- recei...@example.com" > should accomplish the same goal, but with less chance of errors. > > Ed > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFL6W9n3nrUNJhVPs4RAps5AKCCcNdlHm76PcsVrOug6sK25MNCnwCfbkzY > GGtMx7MqVVIMItlk8JjT3WU= > =2Orf > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >
