Frank Tegtmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>"Patrick Starrenburg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> saying that! What we were looking for was a solution or a pointer to
>> the solution.
>I told you two times to try CET. Did you do it? No.
>It *is* the solution because it's your timezone. So where is the error
>in behaviour?
>When you are ignorant about provided help you shouldn't expect better
>answers when asking the same question again.
>Blaming Peter for not being polite is ridiculous.
>Frank
Dear Frank
You know - I could hit the keyboard and write back a real flame e-mail
calling you things like a Unix (and qmail) bigot with a closed mind - but I
won't. I will attempt to gently point out to you the problems in a number of
statements both you and Peter have made.
First of all I think it is important to understand that the fundamental
difficulty arose here because of the belief on my part whereby when I looked
at the Linux machine saying "17:02:55 GMT+2" I conceivably could believe
that it was saying the time was 17 hours GMT plus two hours. But no, we
(now) know that this is one of those 'gotchas' where plus two actually means
*minus* two. We naturally should all immediately recognise this ?? logic.
Well you immediately did didn't you? And you immediately advised me of this
fact didn't you?
You made the statement -
"If it says 17:22, it is *not* configured to GMT +0200. Try to set
Timezone CET. It should say 19:22 then." in response to my
>problem. The client PC clock said 17:22 (+0200) correct time, the
>Linux box said 17:22 and is setup correctly with TZ = GMT
>+0200.
Firstly it doesn't matter *what* time zone is chosen on the Linux box, even
the mistaken time zone I had chosen of GMT+2, the machine *can* say for
example 17:22 GMT+2 *and* be showing the correct time for the local time
zone chosen. This is a separate issue to whether the time zone selected is
the correct time zone for the physical location you are actually in. Also
the key point is what was the **offset** to GMT for the time zone I had
current on the machine at that time. A very simple command you can use in
the future Frank is "TZ=GMT date" this will show you what the GMT time would
be on a machine and we would have immediately seen that the time zone I had
current at the time was two hours *before* GMT not two hours *after*
contrary to what I believed. This would have verified that there was an
error that needed to be fixed and pointed how to fix it.
Secondly your statement "it should say 19:22" is in error Frank, when I
change the TZ from GMT +2 to Europe/Amsterdam (CEST) the clock jumps forward
four hours, not two. I am not quite sure what you thought GMT +0200 was? And
one reason I didn’t change the time zone was I thought why would I want the
Linux box to say 19:22 and the W2K box to say 17:22?? Didn’t seem logical to
me. That’s when I thought I would add some more information to help the
discussion.
You said, “When you are ignorant about provided help you shouldn't expect
better answers when asking the same question again.”
Well I am sorry Frank but you are wrong again – in my second mail I cut and
pasted the screen outputs from both my machines (as from my experience that
sort of thing can often provide a clue) and that is when Mark Jefferys was
immediately able to pin down the problem and not just provided better
answers but the *solution*, he investigated & communicated Frank. You just
made one sided pronouncements.
Now as regards Peter, well I am afraid that his help was even of less value
then yours. Peter said in response to my first e-mail "because it is the
receiving MUA's task to display the date in the format the user desires. If
your MUA is unable to do so, complain to the MUA author.... Your sending
client should add a date header..."
Firstly I *explicitly* said in my first e-mail "The MUA stamps the message
with the correct Date: field value" because I had read the discussion about
that point in the qmail archive thread about this topic which I had read in
full before posting my query to the list, I had carefully checked this. I
guess Peter missed that in his eagerness to trot out an easy answer - blame
someone else.
Secondly after 'injecting' no value to the thread *and* no solution Peter
said, "I say we stop this thread. The user's box is misconfigured and he's
failing to see why UTC in headers is good. Let it be." This was after he,
just as quickly had agreed that the output from my Linux machine below was
OK...
>>*Linux box* [root@linuxbox patrick]# date Sun May 13 17:02:55 GMT+2 2001 -
>>Check
>Yes
So Frank, I guess he doesn't know about (or should I say he is ignorant of)
the fact of Posix negative values for positive displayed Posix GMT offsets
also! I am sure you have heard the term "adding insult to injury" well Peter
:- completely missed a salient point in my original email, went off on a
tangent, had no idea on how to solve the problem, gave no helful guidance
then had the temerity to want to close down a thread because he felt like
it.
Now Frank you will understand that then when I make the comparison between
you and Peter and Mark Jefferys, from my perspective that you and Peter
kinda come up short. I don't know if you are 'official' responders to this
list, if you are then I suggest you lift up your game. If you're not
'official' then I suggest both of you get a dose of humility and politeness
- oh, and of course problem solving skills.
Have a nice day, regards.
Patrick
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
