Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: -a is documented wrong
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Jorgen Grahn
Mar 28, 2013, 7:59:25 AM3/28/13
to
On Thu, 2013-03-28, Dan Jidanni Jacobson wrote:
> $ echo Hi Bob | mutt -s Whoopie -a file1.txt file2.txt -- b...@example.com
> will get you file2.txt put on the To: line, despite the man page says.
-a file [...]
Attach a file to your message using MIME. When attaching
single or multiple files, separating filenames and recipient
addresses with "--" is mandatory, e.g. mutt -a image.jpg --
addr1 or mutt -a img.jpg *.png -- addr1 addr2. The -a option
must be placed at the end of command line options.
Yes, they seem to be saying that -a doesn't work like a normal flag-
with-an-argument but rather introduces a section of argv which is
interpreted as attachment names. Easier to use (e.g. with wildcards),
but a bit harder to implement. And based on what you wrote they
/didn't/.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
> $ echo Hi Bob | mutt -s Whoopie -a file1.txt file2.txt -- b...@example.com
> will get you file2.txt put on the To: line, despite the man page says.
-a file [...]
Attach a file to your message using MIME. When attaching
single or multiple files, separating filenames and recipient
addresses with "--" is mandatory, e.g. mutt -a image.jpg --
addr1 or mutt -a img.jpg *.png -- addr1 addr2. The -a option
must be placed at the end of command line options.
Yes, they seem to be saying that -a doesn't work like a normal flag-
with-an-argument but rather introduces a section of argv which is
interpreted as attachment names. Easier to use (e.g. with wildcards),
but a bit harder to implement. And based on what you wrote they
/didn't/.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
blmblm.m...@gmail.com
Mar 28, 2013, 10:52:10 AM3/28/13
to
In article <slrnkl8c4s.a...@frailea.sa.invalid>,
The man page describes the behavior of more-recent versions of mutt
(1.5.something?), and yes, on the systems to which I have access
it does behave this way.
The behavior the OP is observing is consistent with older versions
of mutt (1.4 and before?).
So it seems to me that the problem is that on the OP's system the man
page for mutt and its executable are out of synch. (It seems odd to
have the man page be the more recent of the two -- seems more likely
that one would update an executable and forget the man page -- but --
<shrug>.)
--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
(1.5.something?), and yes, on the systems to which I have access
it does behave this way.
The behavior the OP is observing is consistent with older versions
of mutt (1.4 and before?).
So it seems to me that the problem is that on the OP's system the man
page for mutt and its executable are out of synch. (It seems odd to
have the man page be the more recent of the two -- seems more likely
that one would update an executable and forget the man page -- but --
<shrug>.)
--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
0 new messages