On Sun, 9 Nov 2025, 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 better a replacement for mail that uses temporary files so i don't have to > 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. > > Jeff >
