Shantonu Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 51 were messages where no timezone was specified. Previously,
> nmh defaulted to assuming the message cam from the local timezone,
> which I don't believe is a reasonable default. Now they default
> to GMT. An interesting side note is that all but one of them
> were bulk-mail spam-type emails. Apparently spammers don't like
> revealing their location. Perhaps this would an amusing spam filter.
I still wonder whether there were commonly-used old UNIX mail tools that
left off the timezone when sending mail on the local machine, though. It
seems quite possible that there'd be more messages out there with no
timezone that were from the user's local zone than messages that left off
the timezone because they intentionally wanted to express the time as GMT.
Hard to research this, of course. Guess we could post to comp.mail or
something.
> The remaining 3 were not accurately parsed by either 1.0.4
> or 1.0.4-dev. 1.0.4 identifed 2 MET's as +0700, although the mail
> headers disagree, and MSK (which stands for Moscow, I believe)
> as -0700 which it definitely doesn't. 1.0.4-dev treated all three
> as GMT, which, while not correct, should be controllable by adding
> more mappings. We just need a fairly authoritive source.
Yeah, presumably there's an RFC?? There's one possible (if not advertised
as authoritative) source on BSDI's site. I'll forward my September post
with my date parsing bug findings. It includes the link.
> Y2K:
>
> There are apparently several failure modes:
> 1. 00 (should be 2000)
> 2. 100 (should be 2000)
> 3. 1960 (should be 2000) 1 message
> 4. 1969 (should be 1999) 9 messages
> 5. 1970 (should be 2000)
>
> The first two cases are handled fine. The third
> is simply bizarre, and I'm not sure we should need
> to deal with it.
Nope.
> support for 4) can be added, but I'm not sure of
> it's value. 5) Is the tricky one, since it could
> legitimately be a UNIX time. I'm undecided whether
> it would be wise to consider pre-1971 dates as Y2K
> errors (assuming people are not still sending mail
> this year with non-Y2K-complaint MUAs. Since I didn't
> recieve any mails of this sort, perhaps we don't need
> to worry about it.
Odd. I don't really see what kind of bug would think 1999 was 1969 and 2000
was 1970. For what it's worth, though, I read that email wasn't invented
until 1972.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Harkless | To prevent SPAM contamination, please
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | do not post this private email address
SpeedGate Communications, Inc. | to the USENET or WWW. Thank you.
