Subj : message-id
To   : andrew clarke
From : Jasen Betts
Date : Sat Nov 02 2002 07:25 am

 >> As a general rule, implementations for specific languages
 >> shouldn't be mentioned in documents.  I'd avoid this particular
 >> comment especially, since it makes no sense.  (time(NULL) must, by
 >> definition, be the same in any implementation.)

ac> From the C standard:

ac> "The time function determines the current calendar time. The
ac> encoding of the value is unspecified.

true, but all C implementations that I'm aware of return "unixtime"
(seconds since 1/1/1970 GMT) either as a long (or posibly as a float
in some cases?)

ac> OK.  RFC822 does actually specify a local part and a domain part
ac> separated by '@' for the Message-ID but I can see why this might
ac> just confuse the issue in FidoNet

I can't, explain why.

 >> Another possible note is that IDs which satisfy the MSGID standard
 >> are a strict subset of this one.

ac> True.  I'm not sure I want to encourage their use though!

if you can fix FTS-9 we only need to replace half our software to be
compatible. for something new it all needs to be fixed. :)

-=> Bye <=-

---
* Origin: Every solution breeds new problems. (3:640/531.42)

You are viewing proxied material from cvs.synchro.net. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.