Re: mysterious c0 80

[Ralph Corderoy]

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.
>
> Yes, but isn't that required by RFC 5322?

Yes, RFC 5322 says do not send NULs.

> I don't object to violating it in this case, so I'm fine with whatever
> we can agree on.

I was confused by your ‘Agreed’ above which agreed dist should be able
to send and post NULs.

-- 
Cheers, Ralph.