OT: Re: Less is more

["Frode Gill" <frodegill@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:59:59 -0400, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The amount of work in decoding an integer (say a UNIX-style time_t) to a  
> date is approximately equal to the amount of work in parsing a RFC822  
> style date, and it's at least as easy to botch up the decoder as to  
> botch the RFC 822 date parser.

I beg to differ. As a little test, it would be interesting to see how many  
of the mail-clients we use are able to parse the Date:-header in this  
message, which as far as I can tell is perfectly legal according to  
RFC2822.
(I know the mail client I am working on fails to parse it. Anyone get  
their client to display 20040429 151030UTC? (Or 20040430 151030UTC, I am  
actually not sure how to correctly parse timezones >2359)

--
Frode Gill