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 Wales 
In-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