Re: mysterious c0 80

[David Levine]

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

Re: mysterious c0 80

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Ken,

> According to RFC 5322, a NUL in a message body is not permitted.
> From §3.5:
>
>body=   (*(*998text CRLF) *998text) / obs-body
>
>text=   %d1-9 /; Characters excluding CR
>%d11 / ;  and LF
>%d12 /
>%d14-127

obs-body is what allows the NUL.

obs-body=   *((*LF *CR *((%d0 / text) *LF *CR)) / CRLF)

§4:

Though these syntactic forms MUST NOT be generated according to the
grammar in section 3, they MUST be accepted and parsed by a
conformant receiver.

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.  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.

-- 
Cheers, Ralph.