Bug(?): time designation of received mails wrong
Hello beta testers. I had a a mail show up with the created date 11 May 2000, 16:56 - as I thought this strange, I examined the headers. I cannot see why this date would be shown as the year 2000. The headers are below (I am located in Denmark, time = GMT+1, summertime [now] = GMT+2): ,- [ Anonymised header ] | Received: from [xxx] by xxx [xxx] with SmartMax MailMax for xxx; Thu, 12 May 2005 11:15:47 +0200 | Return-Path: xxx | X-SmartMax-AuthUser: | Received: from xxx ([xxx]) by xxx with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); | Thu, 12 May 2005 11:01:15 +0200 | Date: Thu May 12 11:01:14 CEST 2005 | From: xxx xxx | To: xxx | Subject: xxx | MIME-Version: 1.0 | Content-Type: text/plain; | X-Priority: 3 | Return-Path: xxx | Message-ID: xxx | X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 May 2005 09:01:15.0684 (UTC) FILETIME=[2743DE40:01C556D1] `- Is the culprit the FILETIME=[2743DE40:01C556D1]? Why? -- greeting Best regards /greeting author Peter Fjelsten /author thebat version 3.5 Return RC8 Pro /thebat version env. ~18 POP3, 1 IMAP (MailMax 5.5) 1 IMAP (Exchange 6.5), 150K msgs. /env. os Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 /os Current beta is 3.5 Return RC/8 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Bug(?): time designation of received mails wrong
Hello Peter Is the culprit the FILETIME=[2743DE40:01C556D1]? Why? No The culprit is in the Date: field which is incorrectly formatted as Date: Thu May 12 11:01:14 CEST 2005 when it needs to be like Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:27:33 +0200 i.e. TB looks for GMT offsets, (and probably the , after the date) TB is VERY fussy about the format of its date fields, and I regularly get Created dates years in advance (or behind) of the current date. Its a known feature of TB date handling. Regards Graham -- Enough research will tend to support your theory. -- Notice: This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains information of Merck Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates (which may be known outside the United States as Merck Frosst, Merck Sharp Dohme or MSD and in Japan, as Banyu) that may be confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from your system. -- Current beta is 3.5 Return RC/8 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Bug(?): time designation of received mails wrong
Hello Peter, On Thursday, May 12, 2005 at 12:27:33 PM Peter [PF] wrote: PF I cannot see why this date PF would be shown as the year 2000. PF | Received: from xxx ([xxx]) by xxx with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); PF | Thu, 12 May 2005 11:01:15 +0200 PF | Date: Thu May 12 11:01:14 CEST 2005 Compare the format of these two dates ... The one in 'Received' header is RFC-2822 alike. The one in 'Date' header is similar, but not the format RFC-2822 demands. RFC-2822 says it's got to be Date: 'date-time' with 'date-time' being ['day-of-week', ] 'date' 'time' 'day' is three letter code for 'day of week' and optional in this 'date-time' string. If present it mus be followed by a colon. This ain't the case in the given 'Date' header field. Additionally 'date' is defined as 'day' 'month' 'year', the given header misses the 'year'-portion. The 'time' part is defined as 'time-of-day' 'zone' with 'zone' being either '+-OFFSET' or one of UT, GMT and several North American time zone names. CEST is not defined as a valid zone name for this purpose. So all in all: the Date-header format is wrong, that's why The Bat! does not display the correct date. PF Is the culprit the FILETIME=[2743DE40:01C556D1]? Why? I don't think so, but in the end only one of the developers will be able to answer this question ;-) HTH -- Regards Peter Palmreuther (The Bat! v3.5 Return RC8 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2) Money is truthful. When a man speaks of honor, make him pay cash. Current beta is 3.5 Return RC/8 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Bug(?): time designation of received mails wrong
Graham, On 12-05-2005 12:40, you [FG] wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: FG TB is VERY fussy about the format of its date fields, and I regularly FG get Created dates years in advance (or behind) of the current date. FG Its a known feature of TB date handling. OK, thank you. Maybe we should wish for less fussy date handling on TB!'s part? -- greeting Best regards /greeting author Peter Fjelsten /author thebat version 3.5 Return RC8 Pro /thebat version env. ~18 POP3, 1 IMAP (MailMax 5.5) 1 IMAP (Exchange 6.5), 150K msgs. /env. os Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 /os Current beta is 3.5 Return RC/8 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Bug(?): time designation of received mails wrong
Hello Graham, TB is VERY fussy about the format of its date fields, and I regularly get Created dates years in advance (or behind) of the current date. Its a known feature of TB date handling. As far as I can recall RFC-822 requires that there is a comma after the day of week. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v3.5 Return RC8 on Windows 2000 5.0 Service Pack 4 Current beta is 3.5 Return RC/8 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Bug(?): time designation of received mails wrong
Hallo Peter, On Thu, 12 May 2005 12:46:46 +0200GMT (12-5-2005, 12:46 +0200, where I live), you wrote: FG TB is VERY fussy about the format of its date fields, and I regularly FG get Created dates years in advance (or behind) of the current date. FG Its a known feature of TB date handling. PF OK, thank you. Maybe we should wish for less fussy date handling on TB!'s part? I guess the real problem isn't TB, but non RFC-compliant clients are. Over here we pay with euros, when the local grocer starts quoting his prices in dollars and I don't understand that, then it's not me who has to get less fussy, but it's the grocer who has to use well defined standards. Same goes for the Date: header in messages. It's an obligatory header field, anything that sends mail should get that right. -- Groetjes, Roelof Don't worry, I'm gong t bckup tdæ!%#~% The Bat! 3.5 Return RC8 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 1 pop3 account, server on LAN pgp4hUr1pF9Ix.pgp Description: PGP signature Current beta is 3.5 Return RC/8 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Bug(?): time designation of received mails wrong
Roelof, On 12-05-2005 13:10, you [RO] wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: RO I guess the real problem isn't TB, but non RFC-compliant clients RO are. That is true. My point is that with the number of broken mailers out there it might be a good idea to be able to handle them better. Most people do not understand this stuff: they only see it's an error and think it's TB!'s fault. -- greeting Best regards /greeting author Peter Fjelsten /author thebat version 3.5 Return RC8 Pro /thebat version env. ~18 POP3, 1 IMAP (MailMax 5.5) 1 IMAP (Exchange 6.5), 150K msgs. /env. os Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 /os Current beta is 3.5 Return RC/8 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Bug(?): time designation of received mails wrong
Hello Peter, That is true. My point is that with the number of broken mailers out there it might be a good idea to be able to handle them better. Most people do not understand this stuff: they only see it's an error and think it's TB!'s fault. Why make an exception for the Date field and not with other _standard_ header fields? What I would suggest is that, if Date field is not properly formatted, TB should detect that and then display something like Date wrong text message and not a misinterpreted date. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v3.5 Return RC8 on Windows 2000 5.0 Service Pack 4 Current beta is 3.5 Return RC/8 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
Re: Bug(?): time designation of received mails wrong
Hallo Peter, On Thu, 12 May 2005 13:14:42 +0200GMT (12-5-2005, 13:14 +0200, where I live), you wrote: PF That is true. My point is that with the number of broken mailers out PF there it might be a good idea to be able to handle them better. Most Actually the only broken Date: headers I'm getting are in spam, so I the problem isn't so big for me. Apart from that I think Miguel's idea has some merit. -- Groetjes, Roelof Modem.A deterrent to phone solicitors. The Bat! 3.5 Return RC8 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 1 pop3 account, server on LAN pgpoqG7jqbG7U.pgp Description: PGP signature Current beta is 3.5 Return RC/8 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
