Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sco!stewarte
From: stewarte@sco.COM (Dr. Luther's Assistant)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Please use valid `Date:' lines in digest entries
Message-ID: <14110@scorn.sco.COM>
Date: 31 Jan 91 00:02:30 GMT
References: <9101212324.AA20350@ata.twinsun.com>
Sender: news@sco.COM
Organization: Party of the Friends of Beer
Lines: 32


Even net.pundits were baffled when eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) wrote:
>For example, the following dates taken from recent digest entries are invalid:

>		Date: Fri Jan 11 18:41:29 GMT 1991
>		Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 02:28:56 IST
>		Date: Mon,  7 Jan 1991 10:34:48.19 MST
>		Date: Tue, 04 Jan 90
>
>The relevant Internet standards for the format of dates are RFC-822 as modified
>by RFC-1123.  Thanks.  -- Paul <eggert@twinsun.com>

This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask for a while.
I've seen a few messages with dates in the following format:

	Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 12:33:45 -0800 (PST)

Which is basically the format recommended by RFC1123, but with a comment
giving the (potentially ambiguous) timezone abbreviation.  As I understand
RFC822 comment rules, this should be acceptable.  This method seems to
me preferable to either the zone name or the UT offset alone, as it is 
both unambiguous and only moderately user-hostile. :-)

Any comments on why this should or shouldn't be used?  Will it cause
anybody out there grief?

-- Stewart
-- 
"The old stereotypes must be lost
 that peace and knowledge and love are soft."
			-- Blastmaster KRS-ONE
/*  uunet!sco!stewarte  -or-  stewarte@sco.COM  -or-  Stewart Evans  */