On Sun, Nov 09, 2025 at 16:11:57 -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Sun, Nov 9, 2025 at 1:03 PM Nicolas George <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > [email protected] (HE12025-11-09): > > > if i wanted to have the same results as my command above > > > but wanted to do it so it didn't consume memory for storage > > > and i didn't want to manage files > > > what might a good alternate strategy be > > > is there a replacement for mail that uses file storage > > > > Reality check: are you saying that you are concerned by the memory usage > > of storing the output of your command but want to send it by mail? Are > > there exceptional constraints that we do not know about? > > It sounds like OP wants to use temporary files rather than memory. Or > I could be parsing "...is there a replacement for mail that uses file > storage [instead of memory]" incorrectly. That is also based on what > Greg said: > > > The first command is writing to the "write end of the pipe", and any > > output it produces will be buffered in memory until it's read by > > the second command, mail.
I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding what the OP wants. They said "i didn't want to manage files" and "is there a replacement for mail that uses file storage", which is so self-contradictory that I can't make any sense of it. The default pipe buffer size on Linux is 64kB, which is such a ludicrously *small* amount of memory on today's systems that it's not even worth thinking about. I hope that's not what the OP is worried about. If the OP is worried about the behavior of mail(1) with respect to storing a (potentially) huge message in memory prior to passing it along to the MTA, then that's a different matter. But they have never told us how big these messages are, or what issue they're even having. At this point, for all we know there might not be *any* issue at all other than the OP's baseless worries.
