Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!TRANSARC.COM!Craig_Everhart
From: Craig_Everhart@TRANSARC.COM
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Please use valid `Date:' lines in digest entries
Message-ID: <cbiJg7=0BwwO4iAIYc@transarc.com>
Date: 13 Feb 91 15:28:07 GMT
References: <14110@scorn.sco.COM>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 23

Excerpts from netnews.comp.mail.misc: 31-Jan-91 Re: Please use valid
`Date:.. Dr. L. Assistant@sco.COM (1244)

> 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?

AMS has been using this format for years with no problems, except that
the year shoul really be four digits: ``1991'' rather than ``91''.  Yes,
go ahead and use this format.  One nice thing is that you don't have to
special-case whether the local time zone is listed in RFC 822 or not.

		Craig