Subject: Problems with Date-header in pc-pine 4.10

From: "Iris Mayer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:57:59 +0100

I just installed Version 4.10 of PC-pine on my Win95-PC.

As in Version 4.05, pine produces a wrong Date header field. Many Mail
clients are inable to handle correctly mails with such headers.

Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
Received: from pciris.rz.uni-mannheim.de (pciris.rz.uni-mannheim.de 
[134.155.50.75])
 by rumms.uni-mannheim.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA25289
 for <[email-masked]>; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:23:38 +0100 
(MET)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:23:37 +0100 (=?X-
UNKNOWN?Q?=28MEZ=29_Mitteleurop=E4ische_Zeit?=)
From: Iris Mayer <[email-masked]>
To: Iris Mayer <[email-masked]>
Subject: test pine 4.10
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.10.9902220923120.-1025605-
[email-masked]
mannheim.de> X-X-Sender: [email-masked] MIME-Version: 
1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-PMFLAGS: 34078848 0 1
P762F0.CNM

I already reported that bug of pc-pine in November 98 (Tue, 17 Nov 1998)
but didn't get more that a robot-answer. I hope, there will be more this
time!

Iris Mayer

----------------------------------------------------
Iris Mayer
Computing Center 
Mannheim University
D-68131 Mannheim
email:  [email-masked]
phone:  ++49 621 292 3585
fax:    ++49 621 292 5220
office: L15,16   (room 922)

---

From: Nancy McGough <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:23:59 -0500 (EST)

> clients are inable to handle correctly mails with such headers.

Try setting the TZ environment variable. I've got instructions for how
to do this and a link to a list of possible TZ settings at:

 http://www.ii.com/internet/messaging/pine/pc/

Good luck,
Nancy

-- 
For Pine info & links, see www.ii.com/internet/messaging/pine/
 
©Nancy McGough          http://www.ii.com          Infinite Ink
--= Sent via PINE: Power Internet News & Email for Win/Unix =--

---

From: Steve Hubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:48:52 -0800 (PST)

The Date header in 4.10 is not wrong. All of the funny stuff is inside of
an RFC822 comment, so should be ignored (as far as parsing the date goes)  
by mail clients. In 4.05, the funny stuff was not in a comment, and that
was wrong, but 4.10 is correct. (Not that this will help you solve your
problem.)

-- 
Steve Hubert <[email-masked]>
Networks and Distributed Computing, Univ. of Washington, Seattle