Re: mysterious c0 80

Hi David,

> > nmh shouldn't comp(1) a new email today with a NUL in the body, but
> > it should be able to read and show(1) one.
>
> I'm thinking of removing the support in post(8) for sending NULs.  Any
> disagreement?  It's not a lot of code so could be easily restored in
> the future if conditions change.
>
> > Now, how about dist(1) of that old email?  I'd have thought it
> > should send the old email verbatim, NUL and all.  If that causes a
> > bounce then the sender can MIME-forward instead with a single
> > message/rfc822 part.
>
> Agreed.

But doesn't dist → send → post so if you remove post's support for
sending NULs then dist won't be able to send the old email verbatim.

-- 
Cheers, Ralph.