On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 04:13:16PM -0500, Will Fiveash wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 03:49:47PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 10:52:01PM -0500, David Champion wrote:
> > > Syntax has been changed: -a indicates a *list* of attachment files
> > > ending with "--". I don't recall which version was first to boast this
> > > new syntax, but it's the problem you're seeing right now even if it's
> > > not related to the problem you saw earlier.
> > >
> > > Try:
> > >
> > > mutt -s test -a Bild.jpg -- m...@some.org <body.txt
> >
> > I recommend against this use of '--'. It makes it harder to write
> > wrapper scripts that parse the same arguments using getopt/ getopts, for
> > example. Sadly, I don't have a counter-proposal, nor am I suggesting
> > this get ripped out now.
>
> On the other hand it makes:
>
> mutt -a * -- j...@foo.bar
Really? You do that? It's kinda like rm *...
> easier which I would guess is why the change was made. You do have a
> point about -- being potentially problematic. Maybe -a should work like
> it used to (only one file per -a instance) and a new flag could take a
> list of files to attach from a file given as a arg (or stdin).
Right. There's no good convention for "end of list of arguments to an
option". There's only a good convention for "end of variable argument
list" ('--'), and since this is the closest thing...
If -a was last then you could:
% mutt -s some-subject -t some-to:-addres ... -a * < body.txt
Oddly enough there's no -t argument. The To: address(es) has(have) to
be last. You can't have two argument lists terminated by dint of being
last.
Nico
--
