On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Aaron McCaleb <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:13 PM, John Broome <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I ran that command and it barfed, but no where near the way yours did: >> >> echo "foo bar baz" | mail [email protected] -s "foo bar baz test" >> [jbroome@host ~]$ send-mail: invalid option -- 's' >> send-mail: invalid option -- 's' >> send-mail: fatal: usage: send-mail [options] > > > Gotta ask some questions before evaluating whether this is useful or > relevant: What OS? What package was installed? Was it mailx? What > package and what version of said package provides your "mail" command?
Centos6, since that was what you mentioned was "different". Linux host 2.6.32-279.14.1.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Nov 6 23:43:09 UTC 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux mailx-12.4-6.el6.x86_64 which mail /bin/mail yum provides "/bin/mail" mailx-12.4-6.el6.x86_64 : Enhanced implementation of the mailx command Repo : installed Matched from: Other : Provides-match: /bin/mail > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:13 PM, John Broome <[email protected]> wrote: > >> You mean the way it's listed in the manpage for mail? > > > Oh, did you mean to say 'RTFM n00b!'? Are you implying that all arguments > listed on manpages must strictly adhere to the order in which they are > listed in the first examples on the manpage? I have never assumed those > examples to be an exclusive list of argument permutations. For instance: [snip ssh example] Order may not matter with ssh, but when trying something and it doesn't work, but *does* work in the order listed in the manpage for the version of the program on that particular version of the OS, I gotta ask if you checked the manpage and tried it as documented. > I hate to ask this of you, John, but please keep your snarky 'RTFM n00b!' > comments to yourself. This is a public list, and like it or not, you are > representing all of LOPSA when you make comments like that in this > communication forum. Snarkiness is unprofessional. It does not reflect > well upon you and it does not reflect well upon the LOPSA community; and I'm > really not certain what you intended to accomplish. If you just wanted to > somehow shame me into silence, then obviously you didn't meet your > objective. Meh. > So again, thank you for your contribution. I really do welcome any useful > contribution. I do not welcome further snarky comments. > > Thanks, all! _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
