der Mouse wrote:
> Assuming that 8859-* printables are safe isn't right; the safe set
> could be larger or smaller than that - for example, there is an

I'd be interested to know about 'smaller' cases. Surely there
are 'larger' ones (like windows-1250, koi8, euc-*, etc), which
have printable characters in 128-160 range, but I'm not aware
of character set with control characters in range 161-255.

Noriyuki Soda wrote:
> - RFC1288 describes that values 128-255 are international data.
>   (not only 161-255). So, your suggestion violates the RFC.
> - 160 may be also valid character with some 96-characters set in
>   ISO-2022.
> - 142 (Single Shift2) and 143 (Single Shift3) should be allowed to
>   support EUC codesets such as eucCN, eucTW, eucKR and eucJP.
> - values 128-160 should be allowed to support Shift-JIS.

128-160 are control characters in iso-8859-*, so they are not safe
to pass without character set protocol extension.

> Default should be defensive, shoudn't it?

Yes. Default of passing 33-127, 161-255 (in both finger and fingerd)
is as defensive, interop-friendly and convenient as we can get.

Jaromir
-- 
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org>            http://www.NetBSD.org/
-=- We should be mindful of the potential goal, but as the tantric    -=-
-=- Buddhist masters say, ``You may notice during meditation that you -=-
-=- sometimes levitate or glow.   Do not let this distract you.''     -=-