Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

E mail date format

Expand Messages
  • siddharthab19
    On the Internet, the notation of times and dates has always been problematic. In particular, the format of Internet E-mail messages, as defined in 1982-08-13
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 6, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On the Internet, the notation of times and dates has always been
      problematic. In particular, the format of Internet E-mail messages,
      as defined in 1982-08-13 (with some later modifications) by RFC 822
      remained valid (which is still valid as an Internet standard) for a
      very long time. specifies a relatively uniform notation for date and
      time. It allowed some variation, but the most common alternative was
      something like
      Fri, 8 May 1998 15:57:33 +0300 (EET DST)
      There was enough variation to make it difficult to write simple
      programs for processing such data, too little variation to please
      everyone. In 2001-04, RFC 2822 was published as a successor to RFC
      822. It restricted the recommended date and time formats to the
      format exemplified above. But still this doesn't comply with ISO8601,
      is there any attempt to change it. Anybody could shed any light
      regarding this.
    • Paul Overell
      In message , siddharthab19 writes ... AFAIR during work on the successor to RFC822 (ietf-drums working
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 14, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        In message <edn0e5+k1cu@...>, siddharthab19
        <siddharthab19@...> writes
        >On the Internet, the notation of times and dates has always been
        >problematic. In particular, the format of Internet E-mail messages,
        >as defined in 1982-08-13 (with some later modifications) by RFC 822
        >remained valid (which is still valid as an Internet standard) for a
        >very long time. specifies a relatively uniform notation for date and
        >time. It allowed some variation, but the most common alternative was
        >something like
        >Fri, 8 May 1998 15:57:33 +0300 (EET DST)
        >There was enough variation to make it difficult to write simple
        >programs for processing such data, too little variation to please
        >everyone. In 2001-04, RFC 2822 was published as a successor to RFC
        >822. It restricted the recommended date and time formats to the
        >format exemplified above. But still this doesn't comply with ISO8601,
        >is there any attempt to change it. Anybody could shed any light
        >regarding this.
        >

        AFAIR during work on the successor to RFC822 (ietf-drums working group)
        there was a proposal to adopt ISO8601 for the Date: header. However,
        this proposal was rejected on the grounds of compatibility, there is
        just too much email software out there that would break. Indeed any
        change that was thought likely to break existing software was rejected.

        (I can't find the ietf-drums mailing list archive to verify my memory).

        The place to raise this is probably in the ietf-822 mailing list, but
        I'm sure the same objection would still stand today.

        Regards
        --
        Paul Overell Internet Platform Development Manager, Thus plc
      • Paul Overell
        In message , siddharthab19 writes ... AFAIR during work on the successor to RFC822 (ietf-drums working
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 15, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          In message <edn0e5+k1cu@...>, siddharthab19
          <siddharthab19@...> writes
          >On the Internet, the notation of times and dates has always been
          >problematic. In particular, the format of Internet E-mail messages,
          >as defined in 1982-08-13 (with some later modifications) by RFC 822
          >remained valid (which is still valid as an Internet standard) for a
          >very long time. specifies a relatively uniform notation for date and
          >time. It allowed some variation, but the most common alternative was
          >something like
          >Fri, 8 May 1998 15:57:33 +0300 (EET DST)
          >There was enough variation to make it difficult to write simple
          >programs for processing such data, too little variation to please
          >everyone. In 2001-04, RFC 2822 was published as a successor to RFC
          >822. It restricted the recommended date and time formats to the
          >format exemplified above. But still this doesn't comply with ISO8601,
          >is there any attempt to change it. Anybody could shed any light
          >regarding this.
          >

          AFAIR during work on the successor to RFC822 (ietf-drums working group)
          there was a proposal to adopt ISO8601 for the Date: header. However,
          this proposal was rejected on the grounds of compatibility, there is
          just too much email software out there that would break. Indeed any
          change that was thought likely to break existing software was rejected.

          (I can't find the ietf-drums mailing list archive to verify my memory).

          The place to raise this is probably in the ietf-822 mailing list, but
          I'm sure the same objection would still stand today.

          Regards
          --
          Paul Overell Internet Platform Development Manager, Thus plc
        • Paul Overell
          In message , siddharthab19 writes ... AFAIR during work on the successor to RFC822 (ietf-drums working
          Message 4 of 5 , Sep 15, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            In message <edn0e5+k1cu@...>, siddharthab19
            <siddharthab19@...> writes
            >On the Internet, the notation of times and dates has always been
            >problematic. In particular, the format of Internet E-mail messages,
            >as defined in 1982-08-13 (with some later modifications) by RFC 822
            >remained valid (which is still valid as an Internet standard) for a
            >very long time. specifies a relatively uniform notation for date and
            >time. It allowed some variation, but the most common alternative was
            >something like
            >Fri, 8 May 1998 15:57:33 +0300 (EET DST)
            >There was enough variation to make it difficult to write simple
            >programs for processing such data, too little variation to please
            >everyone. In 2001-04, RFC 2822 was published as a successor to RFC
            >822. It restricted the recommended date and time formats to the
            >format exemplified above. But still this doesn't comply with ISO8601,
            >is there any attempt to change it. Anybody could shed any light
            >regarding this.
            >

            AFAIR during work on the successor to RFC822 (ietf-drums working group)
            there was a proposal to adopt ISO8601 for the Date: header. However,
            this proposal was rejected on the grounds of compatibility, there is
            just too much email software out there that would break. Indeed any
            change that was thought likely to break existing software was rejected.

            (I can't find the ietf-drums mailing list archive to verify my memory).

            The place to raise this is probably in the ietf-822 mailing list, but
            I'm sure the same objection would still stand today.

            Regards
            --
            Paul Overell Internet Platform Development Manager, Thus plc
          • paul_overell
            ... messages, ... 822 ... a ... and ... was ... ISO8601, ... AFAIR during work on the successor to RFC822 (ietf-drums working group) there was a proposal to
            Message 5 of 5 , Sep 15, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In ISO8601@yahoogroups.com, "siddharthab19" <siddharthab19@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > On the Internet, the notation of times and dates has always been
              > problematic. In particular, the format of Internet E-mail
              messages,
              > as defined in 1982-08-13 (with some later modifications) by RFC
              822
              > remained valid (which is still valid as an Internet standard) for
              a
              > very long time. specifies a relatively uniform notation for date
              and
              > time. It allowed some variation, but the most common alternative
              was
              > something like
              > Fri, 8 May 1998 15:57:33 +0300 (EET DST)
              > There was enough variation to make it difficult to write simple
              > programs for processing such data, too little variation to please
              > everyone. In 2001-04, RFC 2822 was published as a successor to RFC
              > 822. It restricted the recommended date and time formats to the
              > format exemplified above. But still this doesn't comply with
              ISO8601,
              > is there any attempt to change it. Anybody could shed any light
              > regarding this.

              AFAIR during work on the successor to RFC822 (ietf-drums working
              group) there was a proposal to adopt ISO8601 for the Date: header.
              However, this proposal was rejected on the grounds of compatibility,
              there is just too much email software out there that would break.
              Indeed any change that was thought likely to break existing software
              was rejected.

              (I can't find the ietf-drums mailing list archive to verify my
              memory, it may have been the usefor working group for usenet news,
              but the same argument applies).

              The place to raise this is probably in the ietf-822 mailing list,
              but I'm sure the same objection would still stand today.

              Regards

              Paul Overell
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.