Ken Hornstein <kenh(_at_)cmf(_dot_)nrl(_dot_)navy(_dot_)mil> writes:
Shantonu Sen <ssen(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> writes:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Ken Hornstein wrote:
If I remember correctly, wasn't there still some problems remaining with
the the code in CVS? I thought I remember some problems with date
processing.
IMHO, the only problem was with Dan's perception of the date processing.
I thought the changes were fine.
Er, no, it wasn't just "my perception". The new date parsing code
incorrectly interprets many unofficial but widely-used textual timezones,
like "JST" (Japanese Standard Time).
If you think that it's _that_ important to have correct date handling for
non-standard timezones that don't even seem to be used anymore ...
They are still used. I still get mail from Japanese colleagues with the JST
timezone. I'm sure I could find current instances of the other
no-longer-functioning zones as well, if I looked for them.
well, I guess I don't even know what to say in regards to that,
No need to be so dramatic. You deleted the portion of my mail where I said
that since the 1.0.5 release has lagged so long, I was no longer going to
insist we restored the lost date-parsing ability prior to the release.
other than to point out that opimizing nmh behavor for _old_ mail seems to
be self-defeating.
Who said anything about *optimizing* it for old mail? I just want it to
still work properly on old mail. I don't think a small increase in
portability is worth removing long-standing and important functionality.
--
Dan Harkless
nmh(_at_)harkless(_dot_)org
http://harkless.org/dan/