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