| Stef writes....
| >Just out of curiosity, what kinds of problems might be expected from
| >this sort of thing floating out into the internet from ATTMAIL?
| >...
| (1) >From:
allied!Ron_Gallagher/O=AEROSPACE/OU=HQ(_at_)mhs(_dot_)attmail(_dot_)com
| >Message-Version: 2
| (2) >>To: internet!ics.uci.edu!stef/STANDARD/REPORT
| (3) >Date: Sat Aug 24 19:01:53 -0400 1991
| >...
| (4) >End-of-Header:
| >EMail-Version: 2
| >...
| (5) >End-of-Protocol:
| (6) >Content-Type: text
| (7) >Content-Length: 2122
|
...Comments on other fields removed...
| (3) This date is in incorret format. Systems that try to canonicalize
| date fields for internal formats are unlikely to be able to process it.
| I've rarely seen a message bounce for this reason, but I've certainly
| seen them encapsulated by RFC821/822-conforming systems.
It sure is. The data format is probably the worst part of RFC822 anyway.
Wouldn't it be nice if RFC822 defined the ISO time format i.e.
1991-09-04 16:40:37 +0200
...which is what everyone should be using in all human communications
anyway. Is there anyone interested in standardizing a new header field
for this? Not to replace RFC822 Date, but to supplement it? Yes, I know
this is probably not a ietf-822 issue, but I didn't know where else to
post.
Timo