2 Feb
2000
2 Feb
'00
10:07 p.m.
Rats...just been caught by the new reply mechanism. Grrr
"Zane H. Healy" wrote:
I'd be surprised if Eudora used a different method of determining the
date and time for sorting purposes than Netscape does. Your message,
for example, was apparently sent at 00:44:48 -0800, and displays on my
screen as 08:44, because I'm on GMT (and using Netscape Messenger). So,
we're both reliant on senders having their clocks and timezones set
correctly.
I'd object to some central server forging the best indication you've got
of how far along a conversation had got at the time I replied.
And while we are on the topic of the list server,
is it possible to have a
common date stamp put on all messages that are sent out from the listserver?
One of the major pains I have is when messages come in from different time
zones, and this ^%$^&$ software (Netscape Mail) sorts the damn stuff by date
without the option of not sorting. Among other reasons, a common date stamp
makes it FAR easier to keep track of who might be responding to something
first.
Oh, now that would be SERIOUSLY COOL! I'm using Eudora and sort stuff by
date also. Drives me crazy when people have the clock on their computer
*seriously* off.
Although, thankfully doesn't sound like I've as much trouble as Netscape
Mail causes. 
2 Feb
2 Feb
10:56 p.m.
I'd be surprised if Eudora used a different method
of determining the
date and time for sorting purposes than Netscape does. Your message,
for example, was apparently sent at 00:44:48 -0800, and displays on my
screen as 08:44, because I'm on GMT (and using Netscape Messenger). So,
we're both reliant on senders having their clocks and timezones set
correctly.
I'd object to some central server forging the best indication you've got
of how far along a conversation had got at the time I replied.
Hmmm, you raise a good point, the way it's set right now is a good
indicator of how crazy other people are, and if we're likely to see a reply
from them that day. For example, you're correct
when you point out that I
sent the last at 00:44:48 -0800, and this one is even
worse :^) since it's
now 1:54am here.
It might be possible to stuff the original at the beginning of the message
body. Still I guess it is best to leave the timestamps alone.
OTOH, this reply-to bit is driving me crazy!
Zane
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast |
| healyzh(a)holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
3 Feb
3 Feb
6:22 a.m.
Paul Williams wrote:
I'd object to some central server forging the best indication
you've got
of how far along a conversation had got at the time I replied.
I tolerate, but do not even slightly like, the fact that the dates that come
in are dependent on the senders time/date stamp. Putting a realistic time
stamp on a message is certainly not forging anything. Currently, messages
come in all over the place (with regard to time/date order). Is this good? I
think not!
And while
we are on the topic of the list server, is it possible to have a
common date stamp put on all messages that are sent out from the listserver?
One of the major pains I have is when messages come in from different time
zones, and this ^%$^&$ software (Netscape Mail) sorts the damn stuff by date
without the option of not sorting. Among other reasons, a common date stamp
makes it FAR easier to keep track of who might be responding to something
first.
7:30 a.m.
Marvin <marvin(a)rain.org> writes:
I tolerate, but do not even slightly like, the fact
that the dates that come
in are dependent on the senders time/date stamp. Putting a realistic time
stamp on a message is certainly not forging anything. Currently, messages
come in all over the place (with regard to time/date order). Is this good? I
think not!
It's the principle of least munging of headers again; it's considered bad
form to modify the Date: header supplied by the sender. If possible, set
your software to display and sort on the timestamp in the received header as
seen here (from your posting):
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by opal.tseinc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA30204
for classiccmp-classiccmp-org-outgoing; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:23:20 -0600 (CST)
(envelope-from owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org)
It's a bit tricky since there's more than one Received: header, but if
you use the one that says "for classiccmp-classiccmp-org-outgoing", that's
the most likely to get you accurate ordering (since everyone else's clocks
don't necessarily match) and a consistent time zone.
8931
days inactive
8931
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
eric＠brouhaha.com -
flo＠rdel.co.uk -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
marvin＠rain.org