Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Why? Without -i a single . will terminate a message which is definitely
> not what we want.
>
I'm not sure if sendmail treat pipe as usual file or not.
I don't have sendmail installed system handy. But I just
remember some code using sendmail via pipe only specify "-t"
o
On Mon, 27 May 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> I don't use sendmail, but we may better to consider removing
> "-i" option from default sendmail_path.
Why would we want this? Mail() works fine, both with sendmail or qmail.
Derick
> * Anselm Nehls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020525 08:54]:
>
> > > intere
Why? Without -i a single . will terminate a message which is definitely
not what we want.
-Rasmus
On Mon, 27 May 2002, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> I don't use sendmail, but we may better to consider removing
> "-i" option from default sendmail_path.
>
> Any comments?
>
> --
> Yasuo Ohgaki
>
>
>
I don't use sendmail, but we may better to consider removing
"-i" option from default sendmail_path.
Any comments?
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
== from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Anselm Nehls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020525 08:54]:
> > interesstig. I'm interessted too in the right configuration
> > of
