David Levine <levin...@acm.org> 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.
Does that mean an error, or does that mean just skipping it?
I'm fine with skipping the NUL, but I'll live with the error; I'll just have
to fix my end :-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
