Subj : alternative DateTime (ref: fts-0001.016)
To : Maurice Kinal
From : Rob Swindell
Date : Fri Dec 18 2020 05:16 pm
Re: alternative DateTime (ref: fts-0001.016)
By: Maurice Kinal to Andrew Leary on Fri Dec 18 2020 05:59 pm
> Hey Andrew!
>
> AL> While I can see the merits of your proposal, it currently is not
> AL> implemented in any FidoNet compatible software.
>
> Understood. That is why if it already hasn't rendered the software as
> useless it soon enough will. The two digit year has a cycle of expiration
> built right in. It has been witnessed before in this very echoarea although
> I am sure few people understood what they were witnessing given the lack of
> a proper fix. I recall pkzip causing serious problems way back when over
> the two digit year issue as well as the y2k bug.
Sure, but FidoNet is a legacy protocol that must (what I've observed) be enhanced only in backwards-compatible means. So if you want to add, say, the full year of authorship to to messages in a backwards compatible way, a new control paragraph (kludge line) would be the way to go.
And if you're going to introduce another date/time format, best to use existing standards (e.g. RFC822 or ISO-8601) rather than introducing yet another format.
> AL> Your best shot is to convince the maintainers of existing
> AL> packages which are still being developed, such as HPT, D'Bridge,
> AL> MBSEBBS, Synchronet, and Mystic of the merits of your proposal,
> AL> and get it implemented.
>
> Sounds like a plan. If not this echoarea then where? I would have thought
> this is the perfect echoarea for proposing changes to obviously flawed FTN
> standards rather then to chase down individuals who more than likely already
> know about this issue.
This seems to me to be the right place to discuss.
