Ken Hornstein <k...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I'm sitting down to write or modify nmh code. Right now we have a lot
> of code that assumes NUL-terminated C strings are safe to represent
> email everywhere. My question is: is that a valid assumption? If
> we are making that assumption, fine, let's be explicit and if someone
> DOES encounter a NUL in modern email, we tell them to suck it.
I think that this is the minimum that we must do.
> If we all agree that is NOT a valid assumption, then fine, going forward
> we should eventually fix that, or target new APIs that fix that. If
>> The IETF "modern SMTP" stuff John Klensin is working on (with others)
might
>> want to talk to that: a lot of the ICANN UA stuff is a push for UTF-8
clean
>> across the board.
> I do not think this is relevant to this discussion, unless they are
> changing RFC 5322s position on NULs.
But, it seems like a question that IETF could clarify.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
