Oskar Sandberg wrote: >>Why can't we simply add a ?dbrdate=DD/MM/YYYYY (or MM/DD if we go for >>the US scheme) option to fproxy just like the ?htl=... which will >>overrride any hex date schemes. Voil?, everybody is happy. (more or less)
> It shouldn't override any hex date, all it should do is the take the > provided DD/MM/YYYY as the current time when interpreting the DBR > metadata - that solves the problem beautifully. I'm not going to stop > banging my head against the well until people accept that. Sounds fine for me as well... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 2301 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011204/ea917c85/attachment.bin>
