On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 07:53:51PM +0000, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: > 1) ISO 8601 specifically defines ":60" as a valid representation for > seconds, just for this event. If your app breaks, it's probably not > obeying the relevant RFC. > > 2) Anything using the obvious implementation of regular expressions > to check for a valid time is probably going to fail "23:59:60", > leading to events not being logged, or transient weirdness for that > second. > > One example I thought of after a few minutes is SpamAssassin, who > will flag a mail header: > > Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 23:59:60 +0000 > > As "INVALID_DATE", bumping up its spam score by 1.7 to 2.0(by > default), because of the regexp it uses which contains "[0-5][0-9]"
Hrm. Well, in looking at my corpus, I have 0 hits for "60" in the seconds
place, and only 5 spam hits for "60" in the minutes place. So I'd say
we could add in "60" as a valid number of seconds and not have any issue. On
the flip side, I don't think this is a very serious issue since there were no
hits on ham at all -- but we should be correct in behaviour.
I'm putting in a new version in my sandbox (along with a new more "strict"
version) which accepts 60 as valid for seconds, along with a test to make sure
it's allowed.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"Where's the ladies' sty? I desperately need to powder my snout."
- Wally's Elbonian Mail-Order Bride
pgpMhCfAivkpP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
