Re: mysterious c0 80

[Michael Richardson]

David Levine <levinedl@acm.org> wrote:
    >> 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.

Does that mean an error, or does that mean just skipping it?

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature