Subject: ASCII Null

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:18:32 -0400

It appears that no one wanted to make a case for retention of
the ASCII Null character (position 0/0).  So, per previous note,
I've taken it out; SMTP now accepts only 127 ASCII characters.

Anyone objecting to this decision had best speak up very soon
(and be prepared to indicate why you didn't do so sooner :-( ).

   john

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Jul 2000 00:22:34 -0000

John C Klensin writes:
> the ASCII Null character (position 0/0).

False. According to John Noerenberg's meeting notes, DRUMS decided at
the 39th IETF meeting that it was a ``Bad Idea'' for 821bis to prohibit
NUL, even if 822bis prohibited NUL.

> (and be prepared to indicate why you didn't do so sooner :-( ).

We _did_ object sooner. In fact, the people who disagree with you are in
the majority. You are acting against the established consensus of the
working group.

Your editorial procedures are inherently biased. When you want to make
changes, you make them. When we want to stop you, we have to object
again and again and again. Sometimes---as in the case of VRFY---that
still isn't enough.

---Dan