Re: no fcc with command-line sending
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