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 method that won't FCC either). > > > > 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 '-i', Mutt *does* prompt me for my > > password (IMAP), even though msmtp doesn't need it, and even > > though I am not checking my inbox. What's up with this? > > I guess your fcc-folder is on IMAP?! > If '<' doesn't do any fcc'ing, then, of course, you won't be asked. > If '-i' OTOH does, then it can't save fcc without your IMAP-PW. >
Duh, I should have noticed that. Sorry. My password is indeed requested for access to my FCC folder when using '-i'. Thus ends my secondary question. Thanks, Rado. But shouldn't '<' ask me for my pw then, too? It seems to me that '<' should FCC and append my signature, so that the only difference between '<' and '-i' would be that the former does not require any interfacing at all except a password prompt; no sending screen, double-checking of the To, Subject, etc. '-i' makes me do too much to make it worth invoking from the CLI rather than just using Mutt normally. GMN
