[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mysterious c0 80
From: |
David Levine |
Subject: |
Re: mysterious c0 80 |
Date: |
Thu, 04 Jan 2024 21:26:32 -0500 |
Michael wrote:
> David Levine <levinedl@acm.org> 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
- Re: mysterious c0 80, (continued)
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Michael Richardson, 2024/01/02
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Ken Hornstein, 2024/01/02
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Michael Richardson, 2024/01/02
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Ralph Corderoy, 2024/01/03
- Re: mysterious c0 80, David Levine, 2024/01/03
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Ralph Corderoy, 2024/01/04
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Ken Hornstein, 2024/01/04
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Ralph Corderoy, 2024/01/04
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Ken Hornstein, 2024/01/04
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Michael Richardson, 2024/01/04
- Re: mysterious c0 80,
David Levine <=
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Ralph Corderoy, 2024/01/05
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Michael Richardson, 2024/01/02
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Ralph Corderoy, 2024/01/02
Re: mysterious c0 80, Michael Richardson, 2024/01/01
Re: mysterious c0 80, Michael Richardson, 2024/01/01