Re: NULL vs. ""

Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> And since "" is a empty string, not an NULL string. The comparator text 
> states that NULL strings aren't substrings of anything, so :contains 
> ["X-Caffeine"] [:null] should evaluate to false (if :null were valid).
I deeply regret using the words "null string" and apologize for my 
ignorance.
"null" should be changed to "empty" everywhere in 3028bis, and we can 
avoid this confusion.
I'm not sure what a NULL string means in the context of Sieve, 822, or 
at all, actually.
Tim