Date   : Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:14:43 GMT
From   : Pete Turnbull <pete@...>
Subject: Re: Header times

On Nov 29 2004,  1:20, Jonathan Graham Harston wrote:
> These headers are getting confusing. According to the headers
> people are managing to reply before the original questions.
>
> I posted in the Printers thread, with the header saying:
> >> Date: 28 Nov 2004 12:31:57 +0000
>
> The RWAPSoftware@... replied:
> >> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:22:45 EST
>
> apparently 4 hours before my post. The problem here is the 'EST'
> instead of a UTC offset. Headers are allowed to use a textual
> version of the UTC offset, but if an offset is specified the
> numeric form *MUST* be given. There is no way the recipient
> can know what the poster means by 'EST', so has to assume it
> means '+0000', thereby appearing to post four hours before the
> previous message.

Not so, RFC2822 (the current standard) allows the use of certain
specific "obsolete" time zones in date headers (section 3.3), and lists
the allowable ones in section 4.3.  It says

  "The syntax for the obsolete date format allows a 2 digit year in
   the date field and allows for a list of alphabetic time zone
   specifications"

and then "EST is semantically equivalent to -0500".


-- 
Pete                                           Peter Turnbull
                                               Network Manager
                                               University of York