I will take a look at ctdlsh. I liked sendcommand because it is simple. I wanted to create 100 user accounts for testing, so I updated it to read a file and it worked great.
If you think it would add value to sendcommand, I can implement it formally (e.g. sendcommand -b batch_command_file). I was wrong about the memory issue. I was not able to reproduce. May have been something with my system or fat-fingered something. > Sun Jul 20 2025 20:14:30 UTC from IGnatius T Foobar Subject: Re: >Questions about sendcommand > > Welcome back. The text client will always be well supported, and >sendcommand seems a necessity, at least with the current system. > >If you want to try anything fancy, you might be interested in playing >around with ctdlsh. It's been in an "experimental" status pretty much >forever, but if you take a look around that bit of code, it should be >obvious that its intended purpose is to provide an administration shell >for the Citadel system that doesn't require either logging in with a >web browser *or* logging in to something that looks like an old-school >BBS. > >It's far from finished but it has enough in there that you can see its >intent. > > > >
