On Saturday 25 April 2009 16:31:38 Rik wrote: > On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 06:47 -0600, LuKreme wrote: > > On 25-Apr-2009, at 01:55, Rik wrote: > > > Sadly I have discarded the mail, but the server time stamp and header > > > stamp were within seconds of each other, so I don't think it's a time > > > zone issue as such. > > > > Within seconds of each other including the TZ offset? > > would it be relevant if they are 8 hours ahead of the destination SA or > is it too stupid to look at the offset? Hence the question - what is the > rule looking at? I'm starting to think it may have been written by a > retarded chimp.
It would save us the guesswork if you could provide the header section of the troublesome message. As Theo pointed out, there may be problem in Received header fields inserted by your trusted mailer - not necessarily a problem in the Date header field. This is not a single rule, but a code section which tries to guess the actual timetamp at the moment of a message reception. Mark
