Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!burl!hou3c!Rudy.Nedved@CMU-CS-A From: Rudy.Nedved%CMU-CS-A@hou3c.UUCP Newsgroups: net.mail.headers Subject: Re: Several questions/comments on time zones Message-ID: <29Jan84.003557.EN0C@CMU-CS-A> Date: Sat, 4-Feb-84 00:35:00 EST Article-I.D.: CMU-CS-A.29Jan84.003557.EN0C Posted: Sat Feb 4 00:35:00 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 5-Feb-84 04:14:14 EST Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) Lines: 39 To: Rich WalesIn-Reply-To: "Rich Wales's message of 28 Jan 84 04:24-EST" Rich, I have two views of mail: 1) What you see on your screen is what is actually sent. Therefore the time zone is that time zone that you are in including daylight savings problems. If you send to another zone, you may or may not have problems but I don't see any simple solution because I feel the philosphy used by the composer and delivery agents is wrong... 2) What you see on your screen is encoded into a recusive data structure that is handled a specified way at each interface but the representation can be changed as it is moved until it reaches another software interface. The time zone should be displayed as the local time zone but stored in the encoded version as an absolute offset of GMT time. When it is displayed in the new zone, you get the readers time zone instead of the senders time zone information. The senders time zone information (offset) should be included so that some set of users can change the "local time zone" and see what time the sender sent the mail at (in case you want to know if the guy was working late before giving him a call). The RFC822/RFC733 is mostly of philosphy (1) even though I and other people at CMU wish it was different. There are just too many mail systems out in the internet that have simple/trivial mail composers/readers. I don't expect this to change given there is no motivating force that if people don't add code things do not work. I am waiting for multimedia mail and therefore philosphy (2) to happen. There however is some confusion in the world that I wish DCA or DARPA would clear up: Which multimedia specification should people follow?? I hear of one being created by DARPA, one at NBS and one at CCITT. If the issue every comes up around CMU...I am pushing for the CCITT one since Xerox has picked it and it is a more complete specification then the NBS one. -Rudy