*If* we're going to switch away from "seconds from 1970", we should use
the standardized time format described in RFC 3339: Date and Time on the
Internet: Timestamps. IMHO, using anything else would be irresponsible.
However, I don't think we have to switch.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> On Apr 20, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>> Jim Fenton wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I want to start another discussion about the "t=" tag like
>>> we had about the "x=" tag, but I'm even less sure what to do with t=.
>>> Do we want to base the format on that of t=?
>>
>> Do statistics and forensics count for nothing these days?
>
> From a prior conversation, I think the concern was whether to use
> seconds from 1970 or the RFC2822 date time format. Standardizing on a
> consistent format with that of the other headers being examined would
> also permit a recipient to understand what the time stamp value
> represents. The conversion routines are already be available.
>
> The draft could recommend encompassing an evaluated Date header within
> the signature, or providing for a human readable t= time stamp when the
> Date header differs significantly.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
