Re: Thread date problems... 2.0a21

From: Paul Haldane <Paul.Haldane_at_newcastle.ac.uk_at_hypermail-project.org>
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 11:18:32 +0100 (GMT)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95-960729.990514110057.21779G-100000_at_carr6.ncl.ac.uk>

On Thu, 13 May 1999, Glen Stewart wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Any message will do - they all come through wrong. )-:

This may be related to the new date _display_ functionality in a21. Hypermail now stores the date internally as seconds since the epoch and converts it back into a date string (in the local time zone) for display.  

> I run Qmail instead of insecure, complicated Sendmail. Maybe it has
> done something HyperMail didn't know how to handle. A full-header
> message is attached...

That message had the following dates...

>From XXX_at_XXXXXX.XXXXXX Wed May 12 05:01:54 1999
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 23:01:41 -0600

Hypermail interpreted those as

<!-- received="Wed May 12 05:01:54 1999" -->
<!-- isoreceived="19990512040154" -->
<!-- sent="Tue, 11 May 1999 23:01:41 -0600" -->
<!-- isosent="19990512050141" -->

and showed it in the archive as
<STRONG>Date: </STRONG>Wed May 12 1999 - 06:01:41 BST

You're right - the received time (from the '^From ' line) is shown as being one hour _before_ the sent time (from the Date: line). I'm pretty sure this is because of daylight savings - sendmail writes the '^From ' line using the current time zone. For example a message delivered now would be stamped 11:12:31 (because we're now using British Summer Time) while (on this evidence) qmail would stamp it 10:12:31 (because it uses UTC). You may see different behaviour with different messages, because if we can't parse one of the dates, we'll use the other for both. If the two dates disagree wildly (currently more than 70 minutes) then we'll favour the '^From ' line as it's likely to be more consistent.

I'll do some more checking and see if I can come up with a way round this.

Paul Received on Fri 14 May 1999 12:54:22 PM GMT