On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 22:50:48 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 12 March 2021 21:18:16 David Wright wrote: > > On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 18:36:09 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > On Friday 12 March 2021 17:13:40 David Wright wrote: > > > > On Thu 11 Mar 2021 at 15:00:06 (-0700), Charles Curley wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 14:49:51 -0400 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: > > > > > > Does it work if I rather put this signature at the end of > > > > > > every message? > > > > > > > > > > > > Time zone: GMT-4 > > > > > > Months: Ene = Jan ; Abr = Apr ; Ago = Aug ; Dic = Dec > > > > > > > > > > Actually, the time zone is redundant, as it is indicated in the > > > > > time/date stamp on your emails, as indicated above. > > > > > > > > It only works with the first level of attribution, because the > > > > next person to quote the quote may have a different timezone in > > > > their header. > > > > > > > > And that leaves aside the problem of attributions that have been > > > > silently converted into the quoter's timezone, with or without a > > > > new TZ being specified). > > > > > > > > Plus, it does appear that there are MUAs that attribute the time > > > > of a quote to the time at which the replier *started their reply* > > > > to the original email, which is completely bizarre. (There are > > > > several such MUAs posting here.) > > > > > > Care to point some fingers at them? > > > > As long as it's clear I'm pointing at the technology, not the user. > > > > Hot off the press: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2021/03/msg00735.html > > > > This pair is odd; is the MUA using the time of arrival of the > > OP at some location? > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/12/msg00968.html > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/12/msg00970.html > > > Might the OP be useing a hot spot?
Oh, these suggestions were just straws I was grasping at. For example, someone using a getmail-a-like might latch on to the time of that transfer (local time, in localised format …) and prefer it to the proper Date:. And the time of reply would be an obvious consequence of evaluating $(date) rather than $(date --date="… …") from the Date: field. > Well, at least it isn't me. KMail has been good for me for around 2 > decades, and the tde version has been quite solid, generally speaking. Heh, heh, you'd have heard about it before now. :) Cheers, David.