Ken Hornstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >Shantonu Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harkless.org/dan/
