At 18:14 04/05/2004, Brett Watson wrote:
> Why not? Sounds eminently sensible to me. Realistically, would anyone care
> about leap seconds when sending email?
If you're going to insist on "no leap second dates", you may as well do a
conversion from UTC to UT1 at the outset (converting any instance of 60
seconds back down to 59), since this gives you 0.9 second accuracy anyhow.
Why the on-going enthusiasm for half-baked UTC implementations, folks? Do it
right or do something else, I say.
True - OK, UT1 it is then..
If nobody cares for leap seconds, then perhaps nobody cares for seconds at
all
in this instance. That being so, we can declare the time structure without
seconds, suggesting that it should be accurate to plus or minus a minute.
This renders the UTC versus UT1 debate irrelevant: they both meet these
criteria.
Interesting idea. Seconds are really only useful if all MUAs/MTAs are
synchronised. Given that, in real life, they won't, a resolution of minutes
might well be adequate.
Paul VPOP3 - Internet Email Server/Gateway
support(_at_)pscs(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk http://www.pscs.co.uk/