Ken Hornstein <[email protected]> writes: >>No, it always was in band - the 4-SOH sequence was searched for in all >>lines of the message, and SOH has always been a possible character in >>e-mail. Just even more unlikely years ago than it is now. > > You know, I _was_ going to disagree here but Robert is, as he almost > always is, 100% correct. 4-SOH is not valid in an email HEADER > (mostly), but it is certainly valid in a message BODY, and this goes all > the way back to RFC 822. There were some minor changes along the way > (RFC 822 said NULs were valid, but RFC 2822 said they were not), but SOH > has always been a valid character in email bodies; MIME didn't change > this one bit.
Well, gosh. I stand corrected; I should have read RFC 822 before making that decision (back whenever it was). I can only assume that I had based it on what I thought was allowed in mail before RFC822. If I had been designing SMTP I wouldn’t have allowed all 128 ASCII characters. The first 8 would have been forbidden, for a start. Then we could have used ETX to mark the end of the body, and not <CRLF>.<CRLF>, which can legitimately appear in a text message. But I wasn’t, so they weren’t and we couldn’t. Oh well. -- Jón Fairbairn [email protected] _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
