Felix van Hove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -t isn't supported, see man ssmtp.
>
> I have no problem to forward your message without this option, same
> ssmtp version 2.38.7.
I beg to differ (that -t isn't supported). (Of course) I have looked
into this in detail before I posted.
The SSMTP(8) manpage says:
> OPTIONS
> Most sendmail options are irrelevent to sSMTP. Those marked
> ``ignored'' or ``default'' have no effect on mail transfer.
> Those marked ``unsupported'' are fatal errors. Those marked
> ``simulated'' are not errors, but the result is for the
> program to exit with an informative message. A sort of fatal
> non-error.
I.e. an "unsupported" option should give a fatal error, but "-t" does
*not* give a fatal error if the From: address in the body is correct.
Also the manual page says:
> -t Read message, searching for recipients. ``To:'', `Cc:'', and
> ``Bcc:'' lines will be scanned for people to send to. Any
> addresses in the argument list will be suppressed (not sup-
> ported).
For all other options, "(unsupported)" is listed *directly after* the
option, i.e. for example:
> -bd (unsupported) Run as a daemon.
For the "-t" option it is listed at the *end* (and, to nit-pick, says
"not supported", not "unsupported"). I take it to mean that it only
applies to the last sentence ("Any addresses in the argument list will
be suppressed").
My tests prove my thinking, i.e. "-t" *is* processed. However ssmtp
should not interpret the body of the message in any way (i.e. it should
not interpret any From: line in the body), it should just send it.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
