Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:46:02 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: mayuresh@kathe.in, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mailx anyone? Message-ID: <44po0uyqrp.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> In-Reply-To: <20180613204623.3705ae36.freebsd@edvax.de> (Polytropon's message of "Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:46:23 %2B0200") References: <70677739ac5a415c5004ea551a7458b0@kathe.in> <c458985f-ecc5-0c20-df8a-a106886d8df6@FreeBSD.org> <7b3cc5ce196fd216ccdd76fb340a2492@kathe.in> <20180613204623.3705ae36.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> writes: > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:13:13 +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: >> On 2018-06-13 09:37 PM, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> > On 13/06/2018 16:48, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: >> >> does anyone on this list still use mailx? >> >> if not regularly, at-least intermittently? >> > >> > Given that mail(1) is part of the FreeBSD base system and is pretty >> > much the same thing as mailx(1), then probably not that many will use >> > mailx(1). mail(1) is something I do use intermittently. >> >> mailx is just a link to mail. :-) > > It is actually the same file; check with "ls -li". :-) Which doesn't mean it has the same behaviour if called by different names. [See: 'w' vs. 'uptime'] In this case, though, I thought they were supposed to behave the same way in either case, and I can't find any reason to think otherwise.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44po0uyqrp.fsf>