Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 02:00:46PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-08-02, Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@oracle.com wrote:
Right. There's no good convention for end of list of arguments to an
option. There's only a good convention for end of variable argument
list ('--'), and since this is the closest thing...
And since there _is_ a convention that '--' ends the option list, it's
A Bad Thing(TM) to use it for something else. I think violating the
almost universal convention about what '--' means is a terrible idea,
but apparently we're now stuck with it.
It's not just an almost universal convention ... it's actually a
POSIX standard. I never liked the idea when it was proposed, but
wasn't aware that it was a standard at that time. A better way to
handle this is to allow mutt to accept a delimiter-separated list of
filenames, so you can do stuff like:
$ mutt [...] -a `echo *|tr ' ' \$DELIMITER\` $RECIPIENT
or something of the sort. Of course, then you have either the
spaces-in-filenames problem, or the delimiter-in-filenames problem.
Or both.
The standard way to pass a list of filenames on a command line is to
do it indirectly by putting the filenames in a file, and passing that
filename. That seems to work fine for dozens (or hundreds) of other
programs, so I don't see any reason why mutt shouldn't follow that
convention.
Or that. Seems fine to me, though it's definitely less convenient if
you want to attach, say, *.jpg to your message. Adds a couple of
steps.
--
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
pgpe3XeOYiTnh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
* On 09 Aug 2010, Derek Martin wrote:
$ mutt [...] -a `echo *|tr ' ' \$DELIMITER\` $RECIPIENT
or something of the sort. Of course, then you have either the
spaces-in-filenames problem, or the delimiter-in-filenames problem.
Or both.
If we're actually going to revisit this in -dev, I'll reiterate my
suggestion from back then:
mutt -a { *.jpg } $RECIPIENT
I don't think that needing to attach files named '{' or '}' from the
command line is a very common problem. But I also don't think that
what we have is such a problem that it must be changed, so long as it's
properly documented in usage and the manual.
--
-D.d...@uchicago.eduIT ServicesUniversity of Chicago
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 06:18:04PM -0500, David Champion wrote:
If we're actually going to revisit this in -dev, I'll reiterate my
suggestion from back then:
mutt -a { *.jpg } $RECIPIENT
I don't think that needing to attach files named '{' or '}' from the
command line is a very common problem. But I also don't think that
what we have is such a problem that it must be changed, so long as it's
properly documented in usage and the manual.
And while I'm not entering the delimiter debate I just wanted to point
out something I recently discovered:
mutt -s 'subject' w...@foo.com -a *.jpg /tmp/msg
(no delimiter necessary).
--
Will Fiveash
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
Am 02.08.2010 23:13, schrieb Will Fiveash: On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 03:49:47PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 10:52:01PM -0500, David Champion wrote: Syntax has been changed: -a indicates a *list* of attachment files ending with --. I don't recall which version was first to boast this new syntax, but it's the problem you're seeing right now even if it's not related to the problem you saw earlier. Try: mutt -s test -a Bild.jpg -- m...@some.orgbody.txt I recommend against this use of '--'. It makes it harder to write wrapper scripts that parse the same arguments using getopt/ getopts, for example. Sadly, I don't have a counter-proposal, nor am I suggesting this get ripped out now. On the other hand it makes: mutt -a * -- j...@foo.bar easier which I would guess is why the change was made. You do have a point about -- being potentially problematic. Maybe -a should work like it used to (only one file per -a instance) and a new flag could take a list of files to attach from a file given as a arg (or stdin). -- has special meaning in some unix command lines to provide an escape when names starting with a --sign are concerned. (doesn't getopt use it as an escape anyway? not sure). mkdir -- -foo rmdir -- -foo How about mutt -a * \; j...@foo.bar ? -- Christoph
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
Grant Edwards wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
Right. There's no good convention for end of list of arguments to an
option. There's only a good convention for end of variable argument
list ('--'), and since this is the closest thing...
And since there _is_ a convention that '--' ends the option list, it's
A Bad Thing(TM) to use it for something else. I think violating the
almost universal convention about what '--' means is a terrible idea,
but apparently we're now stuck with it.
Having just happened upon this myself I am now one of the many saying
that mutt has made a terrible mistake with this implementation. The
'--' is an end of option argument processing. It should not be used
as an end of list marker. It should be used as an end of argument
option marker.
The standard way to pass a list of filenames on a command line is to
do it indirectly by putting the filenames in a file, and passing that
filename. That seems to work fine for dozens (or hundreds) of other
programs, so I don't see any reason why mutt shouldn't follow that
convention.
The problem mutt is facing is one of in-band-control. The marker
needs to not match any filename. But what if you have a file named
--? (Don't laugh. People do things like this. And then then ask
how to remove it. Really! [rm -f ./--, or rm -f -- --) It is
hard to do in-band-control well. Especially on Unix-like filesystems
where the only two invalid characters are the null character and slash.
One way is just to assume that a particular filename will never be
supported. Something like -- but -- is a terrible choice.
I would have preferred that + were chosen.
mutt -a * + j...@example.com
That seems to have a low likelihood of collision with a real filename.
It is used by 'find' and standardized by POSIX. As in this example
find . -exec echo {} +. And so isn't completely unknown elsewhere.
But since only null and slash are invalid perhaps that is the best clue.
mutt -a * / j...@example.com
Ugly. But seems least ambiguous to me. And it avoids the in-band
control problem.
Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 10:36:05AM +0200, Christoph Kukulies wrote: -- has special meaning in some unix command lines to provide an escape when names starting with a --sign are concerned. (doesn't getopt use it as an escape anyway? not sure). mkdir -- -foo rmdir -- -foo -- means end of option arguments. How about mutt -a * \; j...@foo.bar ? Lots of conventions could be established, but none that getopt/getopts would know already. For example, using '' results in no ambiguity (you can have files named ';', but not files named ''). Either way, the matter is clearly closed for the time being. Nico --
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 02:00:46PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-08-02, Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@oracle.com wrote:
Right. There's no good convention for end of list of arguments to an
option. There's only a good convention for end of variable argument
list ('--'), and since this is the closest thing...
And since there _is_ a convention that '--' ends the option list, it's
A Bad Thing(TM) to use it for something else. I think violating the
almost universal convention about what '--' means is a terrible idea,
but apparently we're now stuck with it.
The convention is that '--' ends the entire option list, not a list of
arguments to a single option. Therefore mutt clearly uses something
other than the existing convention.
Nico
--
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
* On 03 Aug 2010, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 02:00:46PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-08-02, Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@oracle.com wrote:
Right. There's no good convention for end of list of arguments to an
option. There's only a good convention for end of variable argument
list ('--'), and since this is the closest thing...
And since there _is_ a convention that '--' ends the option list, it's
A Bad Thing(TM) to use it for something else. I think violating the
almost universal convention about what '--' means is a terrible idea,
but apparently we're now stuck with it.
The convention is that '--' ends the entire option list, not a list of
arguments to a single option. Therefore mutt clearly uses something
other than the existing convention.
Strictly speaking, no: since mutt requires the -a option to be last,
a '--' terminating the list of arguments to -a implicitly terminates
the option list as well. I think this may have been part of the design
consideration.
--
-D.d...@uchicago.eduIT ServicesUniversity of Chicago
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 12:45:12PM -0500, David Champion wrote:
* On 03 Aug 2010, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 02:00:46PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-08-02, Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@oracle.com wrote:
Right. There's no good convention for end of list of arguments to an
option. There's only a good convention for end of variable argument
list ('--'), and since this is the closest thing...
And since there _is_ a convention that '--' ends the option list, it's
A Bad Thing(TM) to use it for something else. I think violating the
almost universal convention about what '--' means is a terrible idea,
but apparently we're now stuck with it.
The convention is that '--' ends the entire option list, not a list of
arguments to a single option. Therefore mutt clearly uses something
other than the existing convention.
Strictly speaking, no: since mutt requires the -a option to be last,
a '--' terminating the list of arguments to -a implicitly terminates
the option list as well. I think this may have been part of the design
consideration.
Ah, well, if -a has to be last then you're right. (Still feels icky,
but that's just aesthetics.)
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
On 2010-08-03, Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@oracle.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 02:00:46PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-08-02, Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@oracle.com wrote:
Right. There's no good convention for end of list of arguments to an
option. There's only a good convention for end of variable argument
list ('--'), and since this is the closest thing...
And since there _is_ a convention that '--' ends the option list, it's
A Bad Thing(TM) to use it for something else. I think violating the
almost universal convention about what '--' means is a terrible idea,
but apparently we're now stuck with it.
The convention is that '--' ends the entire option list, not a list of
arguments to a single option.
Yes.
Therefore mutt clearly uses something other than the existing
convention.
I thought that's what I wrote.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! Here I am at the flea
at market but nobody is buying
gmail.commy urine sample bottles ...
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
On 2010-08-03, David Champion d...@uchicago.edu wrote:
* On 03 Aug 2010, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 02:00:46PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-08-02, Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@oracle.com wrote:
Right. There's no good convention for end of list of arguments to an
option. There's only a good convention for end of variable argument
list ('--'), and since this is the closest thing...
And since there _is_ a convention that '--' ends the option list, it's
A Bad Thing(TM) to use it for something else. I think violating the
almost universal convention about what '--' means is a terrible idea,
but apparently we're now stuck with it.
The convention is that '--' ends the entire option list, not a list of
arguments to a single option. Therefore mutt clearly uses something
other than the existing convention.
Strictly speaking, no: since mutt requires the -a option to be last,
a '--' terminating the list of arguments to -a implicitly terminates
the option list as well. I think this may have been part of the design
consideration.
IMO, requiring that unrelated options be present in a certain order is also
a bad idea.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! Is something VIOLENT
at going to happen to a
gmail.comGARBAGE CAN?
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
* On 03 Aug 2010, Grant Edwards wrote: Strictly speaking, no: since mutt requires the -a option to be last, a '--' terminating the list of arguments to -a implicitly terminates the option list as well. I think this may have been part of the design consideration. IMO, requiring that unrelated options be present in a certain order is also a bad idea. What we have wouldn't have been my solution, but this solution got there first with a patch. Unless there's a patch implementing something else and a problem statement or use case to justify changing the interface (again), I think this is a solved problem from the maintenance point of view. :) We three agree that we don't *like* this syntax, but is anything operationally broken about it -- can any commonplace operation not be accomplished, or does it require a bizarre workaround? Nothing like that has been demonstrated. -- -D.d...@uchicago.eduIT ServicesUniversity of Chicago
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 12:45:12PM -0500, David Champion wrote:
* On 03 Aug 2010, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 02:00:46PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2010-08-02, Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@oracle.com wrote:
Right. There's no good convention for end of list of arguments to an
option. There's only a good convention for end of variable argument
list ('--'), and since this is the closest thing...
And since there _is_ a convention that '--' ends the option list, it's
A Bad Thing(TM) to use it for something else. I think violating the
almost universal convention about what '--' means is a terrible idea,
but apparently we're now stuck with it.
The convention is that '--' ends the entire option list, not a list of
arguments to a single option. Therefore mutt clearly uses something
other than the existing convention.
Strictly speaking, no: since mutt requires the -a option to be last,
a '--' terminating the list of arguments to -a implicitly terminates
the option list as well. I think this may have been part of the design
consideration.
Ah, that is good to know. I just tried:
mutt -s 'test mail' will.five...@oracle.com -a /etc/motd /etc/motd /etc/motd
/etc/motd
which worked. Unfortunately the mutt usage help:
Mutt 1.5.20 (2010-04-22)
usage: mutt [options] [-z] [-f file | -yZ]
mutt [options] [-x] [-Hi file] [-s subj] [-bc addr] [-a file
[...] --] addr [...]
mutt [options] [-x] [-s subj] [-bc addr] [-a file [...] --]
addr [...] message
appears to indicate that the to: address arg(s) must be last.
--
Will Fiveash
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 07:31:28PM +0200, Christoph Kukulies wrote: [snip] I opened a can of worms obviously. On the target system (debian) the stock mutt-1.5.20.tgz doesn't compile because it can't find libcurses. I have libncurses5 installed. Maybe patches are required for debian? On Debian the files necessary to compile a program are provided in a separate package, called libncurses5-dev. You will need those *-dev packages for all libraries mutt depends on. But before doing this, try mutt 1.5.20 from backports.org. A newer package for debian (unless I compile from sources) doesn't seem to exist. Any debian experts here? I'm getting error 404 when trying to install further packages (e.g. strace) . Maybe I got to extend /etc/apt/sources.list? The only thing you need in there should be something like this (if you use Debian Lenny): deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ lenny main Christoph Hope this helps, Simon -- + privacy is necessary + using gnupg http://gnupg.org + public key id: 0x92FEFDB7E44C32F9 pgppmdctTW30h.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 01:34:18PM -0700, Michael Elkins wrote: At the end of the help output there is this: -- separate filename(s) and recipients, when using -a, -- is mandatory I agree it would make more sense to put that nearer to the text for the -a option. Something like: -a file [...] -- attach file(s) to the message the list of files must be terminated with the -- sequence +1 -- Will Fiveash Oracle
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 10:52:01PM -0500, David Champion wrote: Syntax has been changed: -a indicates a *list* of attachment files ending with --. I don't recall which version was first to boast this new syntax, but it's the problem you're seeing right now even if it's not related to the problem you saw earlier. Try: mutt -s test -a Bild.jpg -- m...@some.org body.txt I recommend against this use of '--'. It makes it harder to write wrapper scripts that parse the same arguments using getopt/ getopts, for example. Sadly, I don't have a counter-proposal, nor am I suggesting this get ripped out now. Nico --
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 03:49:47PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 10:52:01PM -0500, David Champion wrote: Syntax has been changed: -a indicates a *list* of attachment files ending with --. I don't recall which version was first to boast this new syntax, but it's the problem you're seeing right now even if it's not related to the problem you saw earlier. Try: mutt -s test -a Bild.jpg -- m...@some.org body.txt I recommend against this use of '--'. It makes it harder to write wrapper scripts that parse the same arguments using getopt/ getopts, for example. Sadly, I don't have a counter-proposal, nor am I suggesting this get ripped out now. On the other hand it makes: mutt -a * -- j...@foo.bar easier which I would guess is why the change was made. You do have a point about -- being potentially problematic. Maybe -a should work like it used to (only one file per -a instance) and a new flag could take a list of files to attach from a file given as a arg (or stdin). -- Will Fiveash
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
* On 02 Aug 2010, Nicolas Williams wrote: On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 10:52:01PM -0500, David Champion wrote: Syntax has been changed: -a indicates a *list* of attachment files ending with --. I don't recall which version was first to boast this new syntax, but it's the problem you're seeing right now even if it's not related to the problem you saw earlier. Try: mutt -s test -a Bild.jpg -- m...@some.org body.txt I recommend against this use of '--'. It makes it harder to write wrapper scripts that parse the same arguments using getopt/ getopts, for example. Sadly, I don't have a counter-proposal, nor am I suggesting this get ripped out now. I'm not fond of it either, but there was fairly extensive discussion when it was committed in April 2007. See mutt-users 20070320122350.ga25...@giotto.argoss.nl and mutt-dev 20070321193650.gb2...@df7cb.de for thread heads. I think your specific concern may be exempted by the implementation used. -- -D.d...@uchicago.eduIT ServicesUniversity of Chicago
sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
I'm trying mutt -i message.text -s subject -a attachment.jpg recipi...@domain Is there a way to do that without being prompted? -- Christoph
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
On 01.08.10,18:05, Christoph Kukulies wrote: I'm trying mutt -i message.text -s subject -a attachment.jpg recipi...@domain Is there a way to do that without being prompted? You can try: mutt -s subject -a attachment.jpg recipi...@domain message.text Jostein
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
Am 01.08.2010 18:13, schrieb Jostein Berntsen: On 01.08.10,18:05, Christoph Kukulies wrote: I'm trying mutt -i message.text -s subject -a attachment.jpg recipi...@domain Is there a way to do that without being prompted? You can try: mutt -s subject -a attachment.jpg recipi...@domain message.text Jostein Surprise: k...@post:~$ mutt -s test k...@validaddress.de body.txt Error sending message, child exited 1 (). Segmentation fault post:~# mutt -v Mutt 1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Copyright (C) 1996-2006 Michael R. Elkins and others. Mutt comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `mutt -vv'. Mutt is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `mutt -vv' for details. System: Linux 2.6.18-6-486 (i686) [using ncurses 5.5] [using libidn 0.6.5 (compiled with 0.6.5)] Compile options: -DOMAIN +DEBUG -HOMESPOOL +USE_SETGID +USE_DOTLOCK +DL_STANDALONE +USE_FCNTL -USE_FLOCK +USE_INODESORT +USE_POP +USE_IMAP -USE_GSS -USE_SSL_OPENSSL +USE_SSL_GNUTLS +USE_SASL +HAVE_GETADDRINFO +HAVE_REGCOMP -USE_GNU_REGEX +HAVE_COLOR +HAVE_START_COLOR +HAVE_TYPEAHEAD +HAVE_BKGDSET +HAVE_CURS_SET +HAVE_META +HAVE_RESIZETERM +CRYPT_BACKEND_CLASSIC_PGP +CRYPT_BACKEND_CLASSIC_SMIME -CRYPT_BACKEND_GPGME -BUFFY_SIZE -EXACT_ADDRESS -SUN_ATTACHMENT +ENABLE_NLS -LOCALES_HACK +COMPRESSED +HAVE_WC_FUNCS +HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET +HAVE_LANGINFO_YESEXPR +HAVE_ICONV -ICONV_NONTRANS +HAVE_LIBIDN +HAVE_GETSID +USE_HCACHE -ISPELL SENDMAIL=/usr/sbin/sendmail MAILPATH=/var/mail PKGDATADIR=/usr/share/mutt SYSCONFDIR=/etc EXECSHELL=/bin/sh MIXMASTER=mixmaster To contact the developers, please mail to mutt-...@mutt.org. To report a bug, please visit http://bugs.mutt.org/. patch-1.5.11.rr.compressed.1 patch-1.5.4.vk.pgp_verbose_mime patch-1.5.5.1.nt.xtitles.3.ab.1 patch-1.5.6.dw.maildir-mtime.1 patch-1.5.6.tt.assumed_charset.1
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
On 01.08.10,18:33, Christoph Kukulies wrote: Am 01.08.2010 18:13, schrieb Jostein Berntsen: On 01.08.10,18:05, Christoph Kukulies wrote: I'm trying mutt -i message.text -s subject -a attachment.jpg recipi...@domain Is there a way to do that without being prompted? You can try: mutt -s subject -a attachment.jpg recipi...@domain message.text Jostein Surprise: k...@post:~$ mutt -s test k...@validaddress.de body.txt Error sending message, child exited 1 (). Segmentation fault This should work. Maybe you could try to upgrade mutt to the most recent version 1.5.20? Jostein
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 06:33:35PM +0200, Christoph Kukulies wrote:
Am 01.08.2010 18:13, schrieb Jostein Berntsen:
On 01.08.10,18:05, Christoph Kukulies wrote:
I'm trying
mutt -i message.text -s subject -a attachment.jpg recipi...@domain
Is there a way to do that without being prompted?
You can try:
mutt -s subject -a attachment.jpg recipi...@domain message.text
Jostein
Surprise:
k...@post:~$ mutt -s test k...@validaddress.de body.txt
Error sending message, child exited 1 ().
Segmentation fault
mutt -d5
And, since it's a segfault, might also try strace of mutt -d5 doesn't show
any of much use.
cat body.txt | mutt -s ${HOSTNAME}: Subject b...@me.com
... works for me here.
--
Roger
http://rogerx.freeshell.org/
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
Am 01.08.2010 18:49, schrieb Jostein Berntsen: On 01.08.10,18:33, Christoph Kukulies wrote: Am 01.08.2010 18:13, schrieb Jostein Berntsen: On 01.08.10,18:05, Christoph Kukulies wrote: I'm trying mutt -i message.text -s subject -a attachment.jpg recipi...@domain Is there a way to do that without being prompted? You can try: mutt -s subject -a attachment.jpg recipi...@domain message.text Jostein Surprise: k...@post:~$ mutt -s test k...@validaddress.debody.txt Error sending message, child exited 1 (). Segmentation fault This should work. Maybe you could try to upgrade mutt to the most recent version 1.5.20? I tried it on another machine (ubuntu) and there it says k...@accms33:~$ mutt -s test -a Bild.jpg m...@some.org body.txt Keine Empfänger angegeben. (which means no reciepient given) k...@accms33:~$ mutt -v Mutt 1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Copyright (C) 1996-2009 Michael R. Elkins and others. Mutt comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `mutt -vv'. Mutt is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `mutt -vv' for details. System: Linux 2.6.24-27-386 (i686) ncurses: ncurses 5.6.20071124 (compiled with 5.6) libidn: 1.1 (compiled with 1.1) Einstellungen bei der Compilierung: -DOMAIN -DEBUG -HOMESPOOL +USE_SETGID +USE_DOTLOCK +DL_STANDALONE +USE_FCNTL -USE_FLOCK -USE_POP -USE_IMAP -USE_SMTP -USE_SSL_OPENSSL -USE_SSL_GNUTLS -USE_SASL -USE_GSS -HAVE_GETADDRINFO +HAVE_REGCOMP -USE_GNU_REGEX +HAVE_COLOR +HAVE_START_COLOR +HAVE_TYPEAHEAD +HAVE_BKGDSET +HAVE_CURS_SET +HAVE_META +HAVE_RESIZETERM +CRYPT_BACKEND_CLASSIC_PGP +CRYPT_BACKEND_CLASSIC_SMIME -CRYPT_BACKEND_GPGME -EXACT_ADDRESS -SUN_ATTACHMENT +ENABLE_NLS -LOCALES_HACK +HAVE_WC_FUNCS +HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET +HAVE_LANGINFO_YESEXPR +HAVE_ICONV -ICONV_NONTRANS +HAVE_LIBIDN +HAVE_GETSID -USE_HCACHE ISPELL=/usr/bin/ispell SENDMAIL=/usr/sbin/sendmail MAILPATH=/var/mail PKGDATADIR=/usr/local/share/mutt SYSCONFDIR=/usr/local/etc EXECSHELL=/bin/sh -MIXMASTER Um die Entwickler zu kontaktieren, schicken Sie bitte eine Nachricht (in englisch) an mutt-...@mutt.org. Um einen Bug zu melden, besuchen Sie bitte http://bugs.mutt.org/.
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
Am 01.08.2010 19:10, schrieb rog...@sdf.org:
On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 06:33:35PM +0200, Christoph Kukulies wrote:
Am 01.08.2010 18:13, schrieb Jostein Berntsen:
On 01.08.10,18:05, Christoph Kukulies wrote:
I'm trying
mutt -i message.text -s subject -a attachment.jpg recipi...@domain
Is there a way to do that without being prompted?
You can try:
mutt -s subject -a attachment.jpg recipi...@domain message.text
Jostein
Surprise:
k...@post:~$ mutt -s test k...@validaddress.debody.txt
Error sending message, child exited 1 ().
Segmentation fault
mutt -d5
And, since it's a segfault, might also try strace of mutt -d5 doesn't show
any of much use.
cat body.txt | mutt -s ${HOSTNAME}: Subject b...@me.com
... works for me here.
No difference with me here whether through pipe or stdin redirect.
I opened a can of worms obviously. On the target system (debian) the
stock mutt-1.5.20.tgz doesn't compile because
it can't find libcurses. I have libncurses5 installed. Maybe patches are
required for debian?
A newer package for debian (unless I compile from sources) doesn't seem
to exist.
Any debian experts here? I'm getting error 404 when trying to install
further packages (e.g. strace) . Maybe I got to extend
/etc/apt/sources.list?
--
Christoph
Re: sending an email with a mutt one-line without being prompted
* On 01 Aug 2010, Christoph Kukulies wrote: k...@post:~$ mutt -s test k...@validaddress.debody.txt Error sending message, child exited 1 (). Segmentation fault This should work. Maybe you could try to upgrade mutt to the most recent version 1.5.20? I tried it on another machine (ubuntu) and there it says k...@accms33:~$ mutt -s test -a Bild.jpg m...@some.org body.txt Keine Empf?nger angegeben. Syntax has been changed: -a indicates a *list* of attachment files ending with --. I don't recall which version was first to boast this new syntax, but it's the problem you're seeing right now even if it's not related to the problem you saw earlier. Try: mutt -s test -a Bild.jpg -- m...@some.org body.txt -- -D.d...@uchicago.eduIT ServicesUniversity of Chicago
