On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 03:32:32 GMT Daniel Norton <[log in to unmask]> said: >Is that like not being 100% pregnant? No, it's like RFC822 being buggy and US-centric. Why don't you take a look at the date examples in RFC822 and you'll see what I mean about bugs. As for being US-centric, well, imagine you're in 1985 and you have to convince your boss to change the time zone on the system from "EST" to "P" because a consortium of Japanese decided that, outside Japan, all time zones had to be labeled per the Japanese military system, and US Eastern time is "P", not "EST". The Japanese had been kind enough to also allow you to use -0400, although your operating system didn't accept it since in the real world a time zone is three alphabetical characters and they had never heard of this Japanese network called "ARPANET", not did they see any reason to change their systems to adapt to them. Fast forward to 1996. Just as there are still a lot of people using EST, there are also a lot of people using their own time zone names. To date US time zones remain allowed while non-US ones MUST be given in the numeric form (this follows from the application of the various rules in RFC1123). LISTSERV's interpretation is that the time zone can be anything although LISTSERV strives to use the +/-nnnn form for the headers it generates. I'm sorry to hear that there is software that rejects mail due to invalid time zones, and I think that software is broken. There is certainly plenty of useful information for a human reader to recover even if the silly time zone is invalid. Eric