Re: mysterious c0 80

>> 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.

I think this makes sense, and it does seem to cause some kind of
problem as reported in Cy's message.  It would be nice to understand
the root cause of the bug, though.

>> > 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.

It is not clear to me that any of the OTHER nmh programs could actually
even receive a message with NUL in it, and plenty of other programs
fail if a message contains a NUL.  Here's some messages when I
brought this up last year:

	https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2023-02/msg00029.html
	https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2023-04/msg00031.html

So while I agree post would fail with this hypothetical dist(1) of a
message containing a NUL, it's not clear you could inc(1) such a message
in the first place.

--Ken