Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

[Lisi <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>]

On Sunday 03 April 2011 10:06:39 Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 03/04/11 16:54, Lisi wrote:
> > On Sunday 03 April 2011 01:20:10 Scott Ferguson wrote:
> >> I suspect Liam's response was made in jest :-)
> >
> > I'm sure it was - and a successful jest.  But mine was not.  In that
> > case, context made the date's form redundant, but it _is_ a problem.  Not
> >  major one, a very minor one.  But a problem - and one with a very easy
> > solution.  I prefer the 11-04-01 (or 2011-04-01)
>
> Either of those options works for me.
>
> > solution to the one I myself offered,
> > because month names in a foreign language (and for many here English is a
> > foreign language), whilst certainly unambiguous, may be confusing.
> >
> > Lisi
>
> ddmmyy mmddyy type expressions are a pain more often than not (16+ days
> a month) - because I can't tell which one is which (dd or mm).
> Out of curiosity - I've attached a (tiny) screenscrape of how a post
> appears in Thunderbird (yeah I know, but the rest of things are Debian).
> I guess the date format on the left is from the list, and the one on the
> right is from my system... are my assumptions correct? Also - is that
> how others have their dates displayed?

So far as I can judge, the time on the right is according to your system, and 
the time on the left according to the sender's.  That assumes that your 
current  time is +10.  (You appear to be 9 hours ahead of me, and we are 
currently running on summer time: i.e. +1.  If your clock has also been 
altered from UTC, then you will have to do the arithmetic!)

Lisi