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.