Re: no fcc with command-line sending

2007-04-15 Thread William Yardley
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:31:19AM -0400, Trey Sizemore wrote: > On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:48:58 -0700 > Michael Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 08:31:54PM -0400, Trey Sizemore wrote: > > > How are you getting 1.5.15cvs? CVS still appears to provide me with > > > 1.5.14

Re: no fcc with command-line sending

2007-04-15 Thread Trey Sizemore
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:48:58 -0700 Michael Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 08:31:54PM -0400, Trey Sizemore wrote: > > How are you getting 1.5.15cvs? CVS still appears to provide me with > > 1.5.14 from February :-( > > There are nightly snapshots from the mercurial re

Re: no fcc with command-line sending

2007-04-14 Thread Michael Elkins
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 08:31:54PM -0400, Trey Sizemore wrote: > How are you getting 1.5.15cvs? CVS still appears to provide me with > 1.5.14 from February :-( There are nightly snapshots from the mercurial repository at http://dev.mutt.org/nightlies/ me

Re: no fcc with command-line sending

2007-04-14 Thread Trey Sizemore
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:13:07 +0200 Rado S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Moin Greg Novack, > > if you recall, we had some discussion about -i and '<' or '|' > cmd-line sending behave differently with regard to fcc. > I just noticed that even though using "script | mutt" the mails > _are_ fcc'ed nor

Re: no fcc with command-line sending

2007-04-14 Thread Rado S
Moin Greg Novack, if you recall, we had some discussion about -i and '<' or '|' cmd-line sending behave differently with regard to fcc. I just noticed that even though using "script | mutt" the mails _are_ fcc'ed normally. But I'm not using fcc to IMAP, so there might be a difference. Did you obs

Re: no fcc with command-line sending via '<' body-file

2007-03-31 Thread Rado S
=- Greg Novack wrote on Fri 30.Mar'07 at 16:32:02 -0500 -= > > > Come to think of it, this has spawned another question. When I > > > use '<' instead of '-i', I am not even prompted for a password, > > > which I assume is because mutt doesn't need me to interact with > > > msmtp. But when I use '-

Re: no fcc with command-line sending

2007-03-30 Thread Greg Novack
Thus spake Rado S [03/30/07 @ 16.08.11 +0200]: > =- Greg Novack wrote on Fri 30.Mar'07 at 3:50:31 -0500 -= > > > Lo, if I do it using > > -i messagebody.txt > > instead of with > > < messagebody.txt > > then it gets FCC'd, and even has my signature appended (which > > does not happen with the me

Re: no fcc with command-line sending, but with -i asks for PW

2007-03-30 Thread Rado S
=- Greg Novack wrote on Fri 30.Mar'07 at 3:50:31 -0500 -= > Lo, if I do it using > -i messagebody.txt > instead of with > < messagebody.txt > then it gets FCC'd, and even has my signature appended (which > does not happen with the method that won't FCC either). > > Come to think of it, this has

Re: no fcc with command-line sending

2007-03-30 Thread Greg Novack
Thus spake Greg Novack [03/30/07 @ 03.39.15 -0500]: > All, > > I searched the list archives and didn't find anything on this, so here goes. > I sometimes want to send messages (with attachments) from the CLI. One way I > do this is with: > > mutt -a ~/myattach.jpg -s "look at this pic" [EMAIL

no fcc with command-line sending

2007-03-30 Thread Greg Novack
All, I searched the list archives and didn't find anything on this, so here goes. I sometimes want to send messages (with attachments) from the CLI. One way I do this is with: mutt -a ~/myattach.jpg -s "look at this pic" [EMAIL PROTECTED] < messagebody.txt And it works, fine and dandy, *exce