eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) (01/22/91)
Could I make a little plea to the moderator to post `Date:' lines that conform to the Usenet standard? Invalid `Date:' lines mess up news readers like NN that sort digest entries by date. For example, the following dates taken from recent digest entries are invalid: Date: Fri Jan 11 18:41:29 GMT 1991 This looks the the output of the Unix `date' command, which is is invalid here. Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 02:28:56 IST IST isn't in the list timezone names in the standard. Is it India, Iran, Iraq, or Israel (:-)? It's better to say something like `+0530' instead of `IST' to remove the ambiguity. Other timezones with this problem include ADT, MET, MEX, MEZ. Date: Mon, 7 Jan 1991 10:34:48.19 MST The .19 isn't kosher. Date: Tue, 04 Jan 90 A time must be supplied. The relevant Internet standards for the format of dates are RFC-822 as modified by RFC-1123. Thanks. -- Paul <eggert@twinsun.com>
GHICKS@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL (Gregory Hicks) (01/28/91)
Paul: Perhaps the offending sites should be pinged. I don't change the date, I just put the thing together... I'll forward your message to the USENET comp.mail.misc group and let's see what happens. I don't think it's properly a job for the moderator, nor do I think its properly a note for the Digest. Regards, Gregory Hicks Editor, Info-IBMPC Digest -------
stewarte@sco.COM (Dr. Luther's Assistant) (01/31/91)
Even net.pundits were baffled when eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) wrote: >For example, the following dates taken from recent digest entries are invalid: > Date: Fri Jan 11 18:41:29 GMT 1991 > Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 02:28:56 IST > Date: Mon, 7 Jan 1991 10:34:48.19 MST > Date: Tue, 04 Jan 90 > >The relevant Internet standards for the format of dates are RFC-822 as modified >by RFC-1123. Thanks. -- Paul <eggert@twinsun.com> This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask for a while. I've seen a few messages with dates in the following format: Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 12:33:45 -0800 (PST) Which is basically the format recommended by RFC1123, but with a comment giving the (potentially ambiguous) timezone abbreviation. As I understand RFC822 comment rules, this should be acceptable. This method seems to me preferable to either the zone name or the UT offset alone, as it is both unambiguous and only moderately user-hostile. :-) Any comments on why this should or shouldn't be used? Will it cause anybody out there grief? -- Stewart -- "The old stereotypes must be lost that peace and knowledge and love are soft." -- Blastmaster KRS-ONE /* uunet!sco!stewarte -or- stewarte@sco.COM -or- Stewart Evans */
Craig_Everhart@TRANSARC.COM (02/13/91)
Excerpts from netnews.comp.mail.misc: 31-Jan-91 Re: Please use valid `Date:.. Dr. L. Assistant@sco.COM (1244) > This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask for a while. > I've seen a few messages with dates in the following format: > Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 12:33:45 -0800 (PST) > Which is basically the format recommended by RFC1123, but with a comment > giving the (potentially ambiguous) timezone abbreviation. As I understand > RFC822 comment rules, this should be acceptable. This method seems to > me preferable to either the zone name or the UT offset alone, as it is > both unambiguous and only moderately user-hostile. :-) > Any comments on why this should or shouldn't be used? Will it cause > anybody out there grief? AMS has been using this format for years with no problems, except that the year shoul really be four digits: ``1991'' rather than ``91''. Yes, go ahead and use this format. One nice thing is that you don't have to special-case whether the local time zone is listed in RFC 822 or not. Craig