From: Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 14 2000 - 15:05:02 CST
Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
> The "unparseable" is covered by #3, which requires legal contents to
> mandatory headers. But should we say something about dates in the
> future? It would be hard to agree any exact margin of allowed error.
INN has used one day as the fuzz for quite some time; that should allow
even the most egregious time zone errors. We probably do want to say
something about articles dated in the future, since if they're allowed
they end up bypassing the defenses against accepting articles again (most
servers are set to keep a record of old articles for about as long or a
bit longer as the gap they allow in Date headers, so they can accept
articles with dates in the future more than once).
-- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>