Michael wrote: > David Levine <levin...@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