Ralph 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. > 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. David
