Charles --
...and then Charles Cazabon said...
% Hello,
%
% I seem to have found a bug in mutt, when using 'mutt recipient_address' from
% the commandline. Minimal test case follows:
Nope; I don't think so.
%
% [charon]$ mutt foo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
%
% No recipients specified.
That's because that's not a valid email address. We can't expect mutt to
be *too* verbose :-)
%
% It works fine with zero or one '@' signs in an address; anything more causes
That's because that's the defined format for email addresses. I expect
you'll find the same results with any other mail program, too.
Now, if you're trying to use baz.com as a relay to send mail to foo@bar
through that site, you want the good old "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" grammar.
You'll also want to smack whoever is running baz.com for having an open
relay :-) If baz.com is yours, then teach bar about sendmail smart hosts
and don't use a relay at all.
% it to quit. This is causing problems for some scripts I've got which use
% mutt to send mail because of its attachment-handling capabilities.
The number of '@'s in an address should have nothing to do with
attachments, which you indicate with -a on the command line. See the
manual or `mutt -h`.
%
% Any easy workaround?
Once you figure out exactly what you're trying to do you ought to be able
to move forward; if not, explain it to us and we'll try to help.
%
% Charles
% --
% ---
% Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
% GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
% Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
% ---
:-D
--
David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
The "new millennium" starts at the beginning of 2001. There was no year 0.
Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh*
PGP signature
