Re: mysterious c0 80

Michael wrote:

> David Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>     > 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.
>
> Does that mean an error, or does that mean just skipping it?

The old code relied on fprintf(3) and fputs(3), so it truncated at the
first NUL.

> I'm fine with skipping the NUL, but I'll live with the error; I'll
> just have to fix my end :-)

As Ken noted, it would be nice to understand the root cause.


Ken wrote:

+ 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:

In one of those messages, I noted that m_getfld and the MIME parser do
handle NULs.  I haven't tried inc(1).


Ralph wrote:

# 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.

Yes, but isn't that required by RFC 5322?  I don't object to violating
it in this case, so I'm fine with whatever we can agree on.

David