On Wed 24 Jul 2019 at 07:10:14 (-0400), rhkra...@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, pe...@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 ^@b...@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.
