Wait to send multiple e-mails and showing To address?
Ant
I know BCC and CC exist. BCC is nice but I don't want to have To not
show "To: undisclosed-recipients" to the specific receiver. I do want to
show the name and address I entered. Is there a way to have Mutt show
the name when I send to multiple people, without showing other names and
letting them know it is a BCC, from one e-mail I send?
Thank you in advance. :)
--
Quote of the Week: "The antics begin!" --SimAnt Game
/\___/\ Ant @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
( ) then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
Jorgen Grahn
> Hi!
>
> I know BCC and CC exist. BCC is nice but I don't want to have To not
> show "To: undisclosed-recipients" to the specific receiver. I do want to
> show the name and address I entered. Is there a way to have Mutt show
> the name when I send to multiple people, without showing other names and
> letting them know it is a BCC, from one e-mail I send?
I can't understand the question. Do you want to send multiple mails,
or send the same mail to many recipients?
I also cannot parse constructs as "I don't want to have To not show
'To: undisclosed-recipients' to the specific receiver".
Try giving an example.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
André Berger
> On Wed, 2010-11-03, Ant wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I know BCC and CC exist. BCC is nice but I don't want to have To not
> > show "To: undisclosed-recipients" to the specific receiver. I do want to
> > show the name and address I entered. Is there a way to have Mutt show
> > the name when I send to multiple people, without showing other names and
> > letting them know it is a BCC, from one e-mail I send?
No. You could write a script that loops through your To-recipients
list instead, or set up an alias like
alias birthdaylist person1,person2
alias person1 Jimmy <jim@invalid>
alias person2 Jerry <jerry@invalid>
so you removember who is a member of 'birthdaylist'.
> I can't understand the question. Do you want to send multiple mails,
> or send the same mail to many recipients?
When you don't specify a To-recipient but there is a [B]CC-recipient,
"To: undisclosed-recipients" is used as a placeholder.
-André
--
L'art d'ennuyer est de tout dire. [Voltaire]
Baton Rouge
wrote:
>> I can't understand the question. Do you want to send multiple mails,
>> or send the same mail to many recipients?
>
>When you don't specify a To-recipient but there is a [B]CC-recipient,
>"To: undisclosed-recipients" is used as a placeholder.
When i send BCC to multiple mail (rece...@home.com,
rece...@home.com and rece...@home.com), the receiver :
receiver1 have "to :rece...@home.com"
receiver2 have "to :rece...@home.com"
receiver3 have "to :rece...@home.com"
sometime they have "To: undisclosed-recipients"
--
Travailler plus pour gagner plus pour quoi faire ?
Pour finir par divorcer parce qu'on est pas souvent à la maison ou faire un malaise vagal et creuser le trou de la sécu ?
Ant
> > show "To: undisclosed-recipients" to the specific receiver. I do want to
> > show the name and address I entered. Is there a way to have Mutt show
> > the name when I send to multiple people, without showing other names and
> > letting them know it is a BCC, from one e-mail I send?
> I can't understand the question. Do you want to send multiple mails,
> or send the same mail to many recipients?
> I also cannot parse constructs as "I don't want to have To not show
> 'To: undisclosed-recipients' to the specific receiver".
> Try giving an example.
Sorry, my English is poor. Basically, I want to send a mass e-mail but
the receiver see his/her name and e-mail address. Bascially, it is like
BCC and CC. If I use BCC, then the receiver sees "To:
undisclosed-recipients. CC will show everyone in the e-mail. I could
send e-mail to each person one by one, but that is tedious and too much
work. I was hoping if Mutt had a way to do this.
Ant
> * Jorgen Grahn (2010-11-03):
> > On Wed, 2010-11-03, Ant wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I know BCC and CC exist. BCC is nice but I don't want to have To not
> > > show "To: undisclosed-recipients" to the specific receiver. I do want to
> > > show the name and address I entered. Is there a way to have Mutt show
> > > the name when I send to multiple people, without showing other names and
> > > letting them know it is a BCC, from one e-mail I send?
> No. You could write a script that loops through your To-recipients
> list instead, or set up an alias like
> alias birthdaylist person1,person2
> alias person1 Jimmy <jim@invalid>
> alias person2 Jerry <jerry@invalid>
> so you removember who is a member of 'birthdaylist'.
Interesting a script. So I will have to send multiple e-mails and not
just one like BCC and CC does? :(
Grant Edwards
>> > I know BCC and CC exist. BCC is nice but I don't want to have To not
>> > show "To: undisclosed-recipients" to the specific receiver. I do want to
>> > show the name and address I entered. Is there a way to have Mutt show
>> > the name when I send to multiple people, without showing other names and
>> > letting them know it is a BCC, from one e-mail I send?
>
>> I can't understand the question. Do you want to send multiple mails,
>> or send the same mail to many recipients?
>
>> I also cannot parse constructs as "I don't want to have To not show
>> 'To: undisclosed-recipients' to the specific receiver".
>
>> Try giving an example.
>
> Sorry, my English is poor. Basically, I want to send a mass e-mail but
> the receiver see his/her name and e-mail address. Bascially, it is like
> BCC and CC. If I use BCC, then the receiver sees "To:
> undisclosed-recipients. CC will show everyone in the e-mail. I could
> send e-mail to each person one by one, but that is tedious and too much
> work. I was hoping if Mutt had a way to do this.
The only way to send emails so that each recipient sees his name (and
only his name in the To: header) is to send each one separately.
If you send an e-mail to multiple recipients, they all see exactly the
same thing.
--
Grant
Jorgen Grahn
Yeah. It's in the protocol, and Mutt cannot change that.
People who receive mail should not, IMHO, expect their name to be in
To: or Cc:. There are legitimate reasons why it cannot always be there.
The name should always be /somewhere/ ... but in less visible
headers. For example, my system adds a Delivered-To: header to each
mail when it arrives -- so I can see which of my aliases it was sent
to even if I was just Bcc:ed.
/Jorgen
PS. Ant: your English was perfect this time.
Grant Edwards
> On Thu, 2010-11-04, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> The only way to send emails so that each recipient sees his name (and
>> only his name in the To: header) is to send each one separately.
>>
>> If you send an e-mail to multiple recipients, they all see exactly the
>> same thing.
>
> Yeah. It's in the protocol, and Mutt cannot change that.
>
> People who receive mail should not, IMHO, expect their name to be in
> To: or Cc:. There are legitimate reasons why it cannot always be there.
Unfortunately if it's not there that generally means the e-mail is
spam. At least 99% of the "real" e-mail I get has my name in the to:
or cc: header. A pretty good portion (I would guess at least half) of
the spam I get doesn't.
In my experience, sending somebody an email without their address in
the to: or cc: header is a pretty good way to make sure it ends up in
the spam folder (or /dev/null).
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! INSIDE, I have the
at same personality disorder
gmail.com as LUCY RICARDO!!
Ant
> >>> > show "To: undisclosed-recipients" to the specific receiver. I do want to
> >>> > show the name and address I entered. Is there a way to have Mutt show
> >>> > the name when I send to multiple people, without showing other names and
> >>> > letting them know it is a BCC, from one e-mail I send?
> >>
> >>> I can't understand the question. Do you want to send multiple mails,
> >>> or send the same mail to many recipients?
> >>
> >>> I also cannot parse constructs as "I don't want to have To not show
> >>> 'To: undisclosed-recipients' to the specific receiver".
> >>
> >>> Try giving an example.
> >>
> >> Sorry, my English is poor. Basically, I want to send a mass e-mail but
> >> the receiver see his/her name and e-mail address. Bascially, it is like
> >> BCC and CC. If I use BCC, then the receiver sees "To:
> >> undisclosed-recipients. CC will show everyone in the e-mail. I could
> >> send e-mail to each person one by one, but that is tedious and too much
> >> work. I was hoping if Mutt had a way to do this.
> >
> > The only way to send emails so that each recipient sees his name (and
> > only his name in the To: header) is to send each one separately.
> >
> > If you send an e-mail to multiple recipients, they all see exactly the
> > same thing.
> Yeah. It's in the protocol, and Mutt cannot change that.
Bummer. Oh well. :)
> People who receive mail should not, IMHO, expect their name to be in
> To: or Cc:. There are legitimate reasons why it cannot always be there.
> The name should always be /somewhere/ ... but in less visible
> headers. For example, my system adds a Delivered-To: header to each
> mail when it arrives -- so I can see which of my aliases it was sent
> to even if I was just Bcc:ed.
> PS. Ant: your English was perfect this time.
Thank you. :)
Jorgen Grahn
> On 2010-11-04, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-11-04, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>
>>> The only way to send emails so that each recipient sees his name (and
>>> only his name in the To: header) is to send each one separately.
>>>
>>> If you send an e-mail to multiple recipients, they all see exactly the
>>> same thing.
>>
>> Yeah. It's in the protocol, and Mutt cannot change that.
>>
>> People who receive mail should not, IMHO, expect their name to be in
>> To: or Cc:. There are legitimate reasons why it cannot always be there.
>
> Unfortunately if it's not there that generally means the e-mail is
> spam. At least 99% of the "real" e-mail I get has my name in the to:
> or cc: header.
Sure, but that doesn't imply that you should treat the remaining 1% as
spam.
> A pretty good portion (I would guess at least half) of
> the spam I get doesn't.
>
> In my experience, sending somebody an email without their address in
> the to: or cc: header is a pretty good way to make sure it ends up in
> the spam folder (or /dev/null).
Then that's the recipients fault, and his problem. If we (as senders
of mail) have to circumvent other people's stupid anti-spam measures
all the time, we might as well stop using mail.
/Jorgen
Grant Edwards
> On Thu, 2010-11-04, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2010-11-04, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2010-11-04, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only way to send emails so that each recipient sees his name (and
>>>> only his name in the To: header) is to send each one separately.
>>>>
>>>> If you send an e-mail to multiple recipients, they all see exactly the
>>>> same thing.
>>>
>>> Yeah. It's in the protocol, and Mutt cannot change that.
>>>
>>> People who receive mail should not, IMHO, expect their name to be in
>>> To: or Cc:. There are legitimate reasons why it cannot always be there.
>>
>> Unfortunately if it's not there that generally means the e-mail is
>> spam. At least 99% of the "real" e-mail I get has my name in the to:
>> or cc: header.
>
> Sure, but that doesn't imply that you should treat the remaining 1%
> as spam.
To me that's pretty much is what it implies. In my book, spam
detection with a 1% false-positive isn't too bad -- especially when
that 1% is bulk e-mail that I don't care about.
>> In my experience, sending somebody an email without their address in
>> the to: or cc: header is a pretty good way to make sure it ends up in
>> the spam folder (or /dev/null).
>
> Then that's the recipients fault, and his problem.
If you care whether the recipient gets the e-mail or not, then it's
_your_ problem. I can't even remember the last time I missed a bulk
email that I cared about because my address wasn't in the To or Cc
headers.
> If we (as senders of mail) have to circumvent other people's stupid
> anti-spam measures all the time, we might as well stop using mail.
Much of the e-mail I get is people asking me a question or asking me
for help. If they want me to do something for them, then yes, I
expect them to put a little bit of effort into making sure I get the
message. That effort includes putting my e-mail address in the To: or
Cc: header.
If somebody sends me bulk email without my name in the headers, then
they shouldn't be surprised if I never see it.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Edwin Meese made me
at wear CORDOVANS!!
gmail.com
Peter Pearson
> On Thu, 2010-11-04, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2010-11-04, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>>>
>>> People who receive mail should not, IMHO, expect their name to be in
>>> To: or Cc:. There are legitimate reasons why it cannot always be there.
>>
>> Unfortunately if it's not there that generally means the e-mail is
>> spam. At least 99% of the "real" e-mail I get has my name in the to:
>> or cc: header.
>
> Sure, but that doesn't imply that you should treat the remaining 1% as
> spam.
In support of that point, let me point out a common
situation in which you would *prefer* to be BCC'd rather
than CC'd or TO'd, namely announcements from a social
organization like a school parents' group. I don't want
my address on every parent's computer: they click "Reply
All" when they mean to click "Reply", and at least one of
those computers is probably a zombie on some crook's bot
net. I push the organizers gently toward using BCC, usually
without success.
--
To email me, substitute nowhere->spamcop, invalid->net.
T.J. Higgins
Sounds like there is a need for a new command in mutt and
other MUAs that will perform the functionality that now
must be done by script: take a list of addresses, and
send a separate instance of the message to each individual
address, with only that address in the To: line.
--
TJH
Grant Edwards
> In article <8jipg4...@mid.individual.net>, Peter Pearson wrote:
>>On 5 Nov 2010 06:42:58 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2010-11-04, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>>> On 2010-11-04, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> People who receive mail should not, IMHO, expect their name to be in
>>>>> To: or Cc:. There are legitimate reasons why it cannot always be
>>>>> there.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately if it's not there that generally means the e-mail is
>>>> spam. At least 99% of the "real" e-mail I get has my name in the to:
>>>> or cc: header.
>>>
>>> Sure, but that doesn't imply that you should treat the remaining 1%
>>> as spam.
>>
>>In support of that point, let me point out a common situation in which
>>you would *prefer* to be BCC'd rather than CC'd or TO'd, namely
>>announcements from a social organization like a school parents' group.
>>I don't want my address on every parent's computer: they click "Reply
>>All" when they mean to click "Reply", and at least one of those
>>computers is probably a zombie on some crook's bot net. I push the
>>organizers gently toward using BCC, usually without success.
That's what whitelists are for.
> Sounds like there is a need for a new command in mutt and other MUAs
> that will perform the functionality that now must be done by script:
> take a list of addresses, and send a separate instance of the message
> to each individual address, with only that address in the To: line.
It's easily handled by a 2 line shell-script. Why bother putting a
command in mutt?
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! It's a lot of fun
at being alive ... I wonder if
gmail.com my bed is made?!?
T.J. Higgins
For my own education, I am interested in seeing the script.
Does it give access to mutt functionality (aliases, hooks,
header editing, etc.) that an integrated command would?
--
TJH
Grant Edwards
> In article <ib1cpp$8r9$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>On 2010-11-05, T.J. Higgins <ernest.p...@vernal.equinox.edu> wrote:
>>> Sounds like there is a need for a new command in mutt and other MUAs
>>> that will perform the functionality that now must be done by script:
>>> take a list of addresses, and send a separate instance of the message
>>> to each individual address, with only that address in the To: line.
>>
>>It's easily handled by a 2 line shell-script. Why bother putting a
>>command in mutt?
>
> For my own education, I am interested in seeing the script.
#!/bin/bash
(while read address; do mutt -i "$1" -s "$2" "$address" </dev/null; done) <"$3"
The script expects three command line arguments: the filename of the
file containing the message, the subject string, and the filename of
the file containing the addresses (one per line).
> Does it give access to mutt functionality (aliases, hooks,
> header editing, etc.) that an integrated command would?
Probably not, but don't know what access the hypothetical integrated
command would give to those facilities. The script does what was
proposed:
"take a list of addresses, and send a separate instance of the
message to each individual address, with only that address in the
To: line."
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Hello. I know
at the divorce rate among
gmail.com unmarried Catholic Alaskan
females!!
Indi
> On 2010-11-05, T.J. Higgins <ernest.p...@vernal.equinox.edu> wrote:
>>
>> For my own education, I am interested in seeing the script.
>
> #!/bin/bash
> (while read address; do mutt -i "$1" -s "$2" "$address" </dev/null; done) <"$3"
>
> The script expects three command line arguments: the filename of the
> file containing the message, the subject string, and the filename of
> the file containing the addresses (one per line).
>
>> Does it give access to mutt functionality (aliases, hooks,
>> header editing, etc.) that an integrated command would?
>
> Probably not, but don't know what access the hypothetical integrated
> command would give to those facilities. The script does what was
> proposed:
>
> "take a list of addresses, and send a separate instance of the
> message to each individual address, with only that address in the
> To: line."
>
That is really quite ingenious -- thanks for sharing it. :)
--
Caveat utilitor,
indi
Ant
> > (while read address; do mutt -i "$1" -s "$2" "$address" </dev/null; done) <"$3"
> >
> > The script expects three command line arguments: the filename of the
> > file containing the message, the subject string, and the filename of
> > the file containing the addresses (one per line).
> >
> >> Does it give access to mutt functionality (aliases, hooks,
> >> header editing, etc.) that an integrated command would?
> >
> > Probably not, but don't know what access the hypothetical integrated
> > command would give to those facilities. The script does what was
> > proposed:
> >
> > "take a list of addresses, and send a separate instance of the
> > message to each individual address, with only that address in the
> > To: line."
> >
> That is really quite ingenious -- thanks for sharing it. :)
Hmmm, interesting. I wonder if I can have it use my abook with tags or
do they have to be separated. Hmm.
Grant Edwards
>> > #!/bin/bash
>> > (while read address; do mutt -i "$1" -s "$2" "$address" </dev/null; done) <"$3"
>> >
>> > The script expects three command line arguments: the filename of the
>> > file containing the message, the subject string, and the filename of
>> > the file containing the addresses (one per line).
>> >
>> >> Does it give access to mutt functionality (aliases, hooks,
>> >> header editing, etc.) that an integrated command would?
>> >
>> > Probably not, but don't know what access the hypothetical integrated
>> > command would give to those facilities. The script does what was
>> > proposed:
>> >
>> > "take a list of addresses, and send a separate instance of the
>> > message to each individual address, with only that address in the
>> > To: line."
>> >
>
>> That is really quite ingenious -- thanks for sharing it. :)
>
> Hmmm, interesting. I wonder if I can have it use my abook with tags or
> do they have to be separated. Hmm.
I don't know much of anything about abook, but it's trivial to change
the script to amke it read the addresses from stdin (one per line):
#!/bin/bash
while read address; do mutt -i "$1" -s "$2" "$address" </dev/null; done
Then all you need to do is run whatever command(s) you want to
generate addresses, and pipe that into the script. Assuming the
script above is called "batchmail.sh":
(commands to query abook for relevent addresses) | batchmail.sh messageBody.txt "This is the subject line"
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! ... I want to perform
at cranial activities with
gmail.com Tuesday Weld!!
T.J. Higgins
>On 2010-11-05, T.J. Higgins <ernest.p...@vernal.equinox.edu> wrote:
>>
>> For my own education, I am interested in seeing the script.
>
> #!/bin/bash
> (while read address; do mutt -i "$1" -s "$2" "$address" </dev/null;
>done) <"$3"
>
>The script expects three command line arguments: the filename of the
>file containing the message, the subject string, and the filename of
>the file containing the addresses (one per line).
Very nice, thank you.
>> Does it give access to mutt functionality (aliases, hooks,
>> header editing, etc.) that an integrated command would?
>
>Probably not, but don't know what access the hypothetical integrated
>command would give to those facilities.
Right now I can type "m" to compose a standard email message,
giving me access to mutt's facilities. Suppose the proposed new
command were bound to "M" in the mutt UI. Composing a new
message would be exactly the same in both cases: full access
to mutt's featuers. The only difference would be the way the
message is given to the MTA by mutt. That's the point I was
trying to make when suggesting a new command.
Also note that any MUA, not just mutt, could implement such a
command and give the user access to all the MUA's features.
--
TJH
Jorgen Grahn
> On 5 Nov 2010 06:42:58 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-11-04, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>> On 2010-11-04, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> People who receive mail should not, IMHO, expect their name to be in
>>>> To: or Cc:. There are legitimate reasons why it cannot always be there.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately if it's not there that generally means the e-mail is
>>> spam. At least 99% of the "real" e-mail I get has my name in the to:
>>> or cc: header.
>>
>> Sure, but that doesn't imply that you should treat the remaining 1% as
>> spam.
>
> In support of that point, let me point out a common
> situation in which you would *prefer* to be BCC'd rather
> than CC'd or TO'd, namely announcements from a social
> organization like a school parents' group. I don't want
> my address on every parent's computer: they click "Reply
> All" when they mean to click "Reply", and at least one of
> those computers is probably a zombie on some crook's bot
> net.
Also, such mails can become very large just because of the To: line.
I've seen short FYI messages filled with hundreds of kilobytes of
addresses.
> I push the organizers gently toward using BCC, usually
> without success.
Bcc is not a perfect tool for that job.
What they probably *should* do is use mailing list software ... but
nobody seems to know how to manage such things these days.
Christian Ebert
> Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:57:07 +0000 (UTC) Grant Edwards <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>| #!/bin/bash
>| (while read address; do mutt -i "$1" -s "$2" "$address" </dev/null; done) <"$3"
>|
>| The script expects three command line arguments: the filename of the
>| file containing the message, the subject string, and the filename of
>| the file containing the addresses (one per line).
>
>
> email to prevent one's ISP from flagging them as outgoing spam
> and cancelling it halfway through the list.
You could xx in the 4th argument, and then:
(while read address; do sleep $4; mutt -i "$1" -s "$2" "$address" </dev/null; done) <"$3"
Obviously it will take longer ;-)
c
--
\black\trash movie _SAME TIME SAME PLACE_
New York, in the summer of 2001
Grant Edwards
> Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:57:07 +0000 (UTC) Grant Edwards <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>| On 2010-11-05, T.J. Higgins <ernest.p...@vernal.equinox.edu> wrote:
>|> In article <ib1cpp$8r9$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Grant Edwards wrote:
>|>>On 2010-11-05, T.J. Higgins <ernest.p...@vernal.equinox.edu> wrote:
>|>>> Sounds like there is a need for a new command in mutt and other MUAs
>|>>> that will perform the functionality that now must be done by script:
>|>>> take a list of addresses, and send a separate instance of the message
>|>>> to each individual address, with only that address in the To: line.
>|>>
>|>>It's easily handled by a 2 line shell-script. Why bother putting a
>|>>command in mutt?
>|>
>|> For my own education, I am interested in seeing the script.
>|
>| #!/bin/bash
>| (while read address; do mutt -i "$1" -s "$2" "$address" </dev/null; done) <"$3"
>|
>| The script expects three command line arguments: the filename of the
>| file containing the message, the subject string, and the filename of
>| the file containing the addresses (one per line).
>
> email to prevent one's ISP from flagging them as outgoing spam
> and cancelling it halfway through the list.
#!/bin/bash
(while read address; do mutt -i "$1" -s "$2" "$address" </dev/null; sleep 5; done) <"$3"
I've chosen a 5 second delay. I'll leave it as an exercise for the
reader to figure out how to change the delay length. Does nobody use
a shell anymore?
--
Grant
Jorgen Grahn
> Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:57:07 +0000 (UTC) Grant Edwards <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> | On 2010-11-05, T.J. Higgins <ernest.p...@vernal.equinox.edu> wrote:
> |> In article <ib1cpp$8r9$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Grant Edwards wrote:
> |>>On 2010-11-05, T.J. Higgins <ernest.p...@vernal.equinox.edu> wrote:
> |>>> Sounds like there is a need for a new command in mutt and other MUAs
> |>>> that will perform the functionality that now must be done by script:
> |>>> take a list of addresses, and send a separate instance of the message
> |>>> to each individual address, with only that address in the To: line.
> |>>
> |>>It's easily handled by a 2 line shell-script. Why bother putting a
> |>>command in mutt?
> |>
> |> For my own education, I am interested in seeing the script.
> |
> | #!/bin/bash
> | (while read address; do mutt -i "$1" -s "$2" "$address" </dev/null; done) <"$3"
> |
> | The script expects three command line arguments: the filename of the
> | file containing the message, the subject string, and the filename of
> | the file containing the addresses (one per line).
>
>
> email to prevent one's ISP from flagging them as outgoing spam
> and cancelling it halfway through the list.
Complain to your ISP. What they're doing is stupid and breaks mail.
They're destroying what others worked hard to create.
Or go with it, and add a delay to the example above:
...ull; sleep 10; done
or whatever happens to make the ISP happy on any particular day.
I suppose your contract with them doesn't specify the number of mails
you may send per hour?
Ant
Thanks. Darn, I wished I was good in coding. I will see what I can do
with it.
--
Quote of the Week: "Ladies and gentlemen, hoboes and tramps...Crosseyed
Mosquitoes and bow-legged ants...I've come to tell you the story..."
--Bob Holman