Re: Using Gmail on Debian mailing lists
On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 22:50:48 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 12 March 2021 21:18:16 David Wright wrote:
> > On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 18:36:09 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Friday 12 March 2021 17:13:40 David Wright wrote:
> > > > On Thu 11 Mar 2021 at 15:00:06 (-0700), Charles Curley wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 14:49:51 -0400 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> > > > > > Does it work if I rather put this signature at the end of
> > > > > > every message?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Time zone: GMT-4
> > > > > > Months: Ene = Jan ; Abr = Apr ; Ago = Aug ; Dic = Dec
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, the time zone is redundant, as it is indicated in the
> > > > > time/date stamp on your emails, as indicated above.
> > > >
> > > > It only works with the first level of attribution, because the
> > > > next person to quote the quote may have a different timezone in
> > > > their header.
> > > >
> > > > And that leaves aside the problem of attributions that have been
> > > > silently converted into the quoter's timezone, with or without a
> > > > new TZ being specified).
> > > >
> > > > Plus, it does appear that there are MUAs that attribute the time
> > > > of a quote to the time at which the replier *started their reply*
> > > > to the original email, which is completely bizarre. (There are
> > > > several such MUAs posting here.)
> > >
> > > Care to point some fingers at them?
> >
> > As long as it's clear I'm pointing at the technology, not the user.
> >
> > Hot off the press:
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2021/03/msg00735.html
> >
> > This pair is odd; is the MUA using the time of arrival of the
> > OP at some location?
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/12/msg00968.html
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/12/msg00970.html
> >
> Might the OP be useing a hot spot?
Oh, these suggestions were just straws I was grasping at.
For example, someone using a getmail-a-like might latch on
to the time of that transfer (local time, in localised format …)
and prefer it to the proper Date:.
And the time of reply would be an obvious consequence of
evaluating $(date) rather than $(date --date="… …") from
the Date: field.
> Well, at least it isn't me. KMail has been good for me for around 2
> decades, and the tde version has been quite solid, generally speaking.
Heh, heh, you'd have heard about it before now. :)
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: