Hendrik Oesterlin wrote: > OK, I think I got your point of view.... > in fact, there are some other considerations, which none of you two seems to figure out.
the Date: field, as per the respective RFC, has a well-defined format. however, a lot of mail senders (mostly those web-based, which are written by people that follow Roelof's logic™), do dumbly add it in human-readable (by 'standard' means of php, perl, java, .net or whatever backend engine used by the site). and, to make things worse, when that indian-developed engine is deployed on the environment of a language-purist admin in some country like France... brrr... :) thebat does a lot of effort to guess these formats. obviously, this can never get good enough, as long as there are developers that consider that email standards appeared only at that very moment when THEY got their hands on these things. no, Roelof, that logic™ of yours (better said, philosophy, isn't it?) sucks baaadly. -- Signed, Vitalie. http://vv.labordei.com ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.99.21 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
