In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Henderson writes: > On 2007/01/03 16:37, Igor Sobrado wrote: > > It is certainly better using the "sftp [EMAIL PROTECTED]" syntax, but > > sometimes > > I miss the "user@" part on the command line when the login name on the > > remote system is different to the one I am using locally. > > How about this instead? > > $ cat >> ~/.ssh/config << EOF > Host blah.blah.blah > User somebody > EOF
Hello. Thanks a lot for your reply. Indeed it should work, but I think that adding a "-l" option to sftp(1) is not only more flexible (sometimes we want to log into user accounts with different names on the same host, not just to an account with a different name to the one we are currently using, and we do not remember to type the user@ string before the hostname) but more user friendly, as we can use the same option to specify the username on both ssh(1) and sftp(1). It is only that I am accustomed to the syntax of ssh(1), and sometimes I do the mistake of using the same option to specify the username on sftp(1). I started this thread since I sometimes miss to type the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" string and, instead of fixing the command line, I just add a "-l user" to the current command line. It does not work on sftp(1) right now, up to my knowledge (I looked at the source at the CVS repository, and there is not a "-l" case in the switch structure on sftp.c). My goal was just proposing adding this option to sftp(1), as I see symmetry between ssh(1) and sftp(1) options as an improvement (when it makes sense, of course!); but, honestly, I do not know if there is a reason for sftp(1) not currently being supporting this option. I guess that there must be a reason, as the "-l" option is not implemented yet. Thanks a lot for your advice, I am aware about the User keyword on ssh_config(5), but it is nice to remember that it exists! Again, thanks a lot for your feedback. Best regards, Igor.
