[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mysterious c0 80
|
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
|
Subject: |
Re: mysterious c0 80 |
|
Date: |
Thu, 04 Jan 2024 09:50:13 -0500 |
>> So while I agree post would fail with this hypothetical dist(1) of a
>> message containing a NUL, it's not clear you could inc(1) such a
>> message in the first place.
>
>Today or historically? Historically is a long time.
I can't say that I know every single line of nmh and MH code since the
dawn of time, but I've been in and out of it a lot. The assumption that
you can represent email lines as C strings has been embedded in nmh and
MH for as long as I can tell. Such emails don't work with nmh, and they
probably don't work well with other MUAs either. Okay, fine, "don't
work" is a bit of an oversimplification; it seems like those lines will
be silently truncated at the NUL character, so they probably "work" fine
and you just don't notice the NULs.
--Ken
- Re: mysterious c0 80, (continued)
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Ken Hornstein, 2024/01/02
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Ralph Corderoy, 2024/01/02
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Michael Richardson, 2024/01/02
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Ken Hornstein, 2024/01/02
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Michael Richardson, 2024/01/02
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Ralph Corderoy, 2024/01/03
- Re: mysterious c0 80, David Levine, 2024/01/03
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Ralph Corderoy, 2024/01/04
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Ken Hornstein, 2024/01/04
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Ralph Corderoy, 2024/01/04
- Re: mysterious c0 80,
Ken Hornstein <=
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Michael Richardson, 2024/01/04
- Re: mysterious c0 80, David Levine, 2024/01/04
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Ralph Corderoy, 2024/01/05
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Michael Richardson, 2024/01/02
- Re: mysterious c0 80, Ralph Corderoy, 2024/01/02
Re: mysterious c0 80, Michael Richardson, 2024/01/01
Re: mysterious c0 80, Michael Richardson, 2024/01/01