Perhaps Python can do this better ?

[news at absamail.co.za]

n... at absamail.co.za wrote:

> Using a script:--
> lynx -dump '<URL1>' > Fl1
> ....
> lynx -dump '<URLn>' > Fln
> ....
>   where the URLs are filled in off line, is a great online-telco-cost
> saver for me here in 3rd world S. Africa.
> 
> I want to similarly send a set of pre-written emails via the
> same script.
> 
> Is this possible & how ?
> 
> And if not via lynx, by some other means.
> What I like about the above is that you don't even need to
> load/see lynx, which is just in the background.

moma at example.net wrote:
] can't you use 'mail' or 'mutt'?
] $ man mail
] $ man mailx
] $ man mutt

Enrique Perez-Terron wrote:
} The oldest Unix email I know of used this syntax to send mail:
} 
}      mail -s "subject" recipient at host < mailfile
} 
} but it actually invokes "sendmail" to do the delivery. Configuring
} sendmail is **dificult**.   Postfix is somewhat easier.   Most systems
} come with sendmail already installed.
} 
} The trouble is that the standard sendmail config supposes that your
} computer is a first-class citizen of the Internet, with it's own
} properly registered dns hostname.   Then sendmail would use DNS to
} figure out what computer to relay the mail to for the given recipient
} address.
}   ...etc...BIG explanation.
} 
} Andrew Preater wrote:
} A simple mailer such as ssmtp would do this trick.   It's
} sendmail-compliant so you can use it with mutt et al., all it
} does it send mail through to your smarthost which could be your
} ISPs server or another machine on your network.   It can rewrite
} the From and envelope for you too, but you might as well do that
} in mutt.
} ......
} IIRC pine can do this.   But then you'd be using pine (aaargh!)
} rather than mutt.

Yea well I don't want to install ssmtp or other stuff.
That's how bloat spreads.
"mail" apparently calls 'sendmail' - a monster AFAIK ?
It was enough trouble setting up: dial > ppp.
I don't need another layer of crap.
Perhaps I'll use pine.
But since lynx can do it 'manually' please remind me of the bash
syntax for:

1. 'output char("x") as if in CLI'
2. 'output string("string1") as if in CLI'
3. 'output text of File1 as if in CLI'

Then I can just make some templates to combine with the 
'getHttp-to-file' which lynx does so well already.

Thanks for any input,

== chris Glur.