Re: buster, ekiga.
On Wed 24 Jul 2019 at 07:10:14 (-0400), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 11:07:37 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 07:41:20AM -0700, peter@easthope.ca wrote:
> > > * From: Brad Rogers
> >
> > Oh, it's this guy again.
> >
> > /me looks at the raw mail message with less(1)
> >
> > * From: Brad Rogers ^@brad@fineby.me.uk^@
> >
> > Yup. Two NUL bytes in the body of the message. How completely bizarre.
> >
> > Apparently what mutt does is truncate that *line* at the first NUL
> > byte, but then show all the other lines after that just fine.
> >
> > Other people are seeing the entire message truncated at that point, not
> > just one line truncated.
> >
> > Peter, whatever you're doing with your outgoing mail is really strange,
> > and if possible, you should try to stop it. Embedding raw NUL characters
> > in the body of an email is a problem.
>
> +1
Well, since Greg's message was posted, the OP has explained their
actions, which were made with good intentions. I hope my reply in
the other thread will save the OP some time and effort as well as
benefitting us all here.
However, I would not award +1 to the MUAs that, we are told,
truncate the message, or even just the line, at the first
NUL byte. That could yield a message with a very different sense
from what the sender wrote. If the MUA is outputting Unicode,
there exists a REPLACEMENT CHARACTER (U+FFFD) for replacing an
unknown, unrecognized or unrepresentable character. But if the
MUA decides that it's valid, but unprintable, it should just
escape it as is usual.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: