Thanks for the dateformat enhancement, Paul. That's just what I wanted.
Without trying to get into the messages-arriving-close-together issue, I did see wrong behavior in the index order, however. Looks like the same thing Glen ran into.
With hm_reverse = 1, the thread and date indexes show the newest message at the bottom of the stack, with the rest in proper reverse order. So, for the first 5 messages (none of them replies), the order goes:
0 0 1 2 3
1 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 0 4
This was true for 2a20, also. With the simpler date format, the following jumped out at me, with 4 messages sent in the course of 3 minutes just before 1pm local time (MDT, 6 hours behind UTC):
Third message 14 May 1999 19:56:28 Second message 14 May 1999 19:55:18 Start over with 2a21 14 May 1999 19:54:56 4th message 14 May 1999 12:56:50
When the 5th message arrives, the 4th message date gets converted to BST (! I can understand UTC, but BST? Seems quite strange, with my system sitting in Idaho) and the stack is:
4th message 14 May 1999 19:56:50 Third message 14 May 1999 19:56:28 Second message 14 May 1999 19:55:18 Start over with 2a21 14 May 1999 19:54:56 5th message 14 May 1999 13:03:42
My system's "From " lines are in local time (MDT). In terms of indexing, my preference would be to use the local time, and the header or footer can have a note to that effect for viewers from other time zones.
_____________ Hewlett-Packard Computer Peripherals Bristol Tom von Alten mailto:Tom_vonAlten_at_boi.hp.com
This posting is for informational purposes only. It is not a statement of the Hewlett-Packard Co.Received on Fri 14 May 1999 09:19:28 PM GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat 13 Mar 2010 03:46:11 AM GMT GMT