On 8/23/2005 3:23 PM, Tim Casten wrote:
> Hello Eric,
> 
> Thursday, July 28, 2005, 10:48:36 AM, you wrote:
> 
> 
>>I can try to improve blackberry recognition, but frankly, I hate having to
>>mess with this code, because every time I improve recognition of a new
>>incorrect format, I create a problem with another incorrect format that was
>>working just fine before. In fact, I ended up deleting half of the
>>heuristics about 10 years ago and simply inserting the server's current date
>>and time when the date field is all too "creative." Currently, LISTSERV only
>>attempts to fix dates that do not look all too different from the norm.
> 
> 
>>The only good solution is for every mail client to implement RFC822 date
>>format. This format dates back from 1982, it is easy to read and easy to
>>program, frankly there is no excuse for doing things differently!
> 
> 
> While I understand your frustration with Time and Date stamps I must also 
 > wonder why the reluctance to apply a fix to this as Blackberry is no
 > small corporation.
> 
> The blackberrys are sending out a time stamp all of which may generate 
 > a soft error with some clients however LSOFT is taking this soft error
 > and changing it to a hard error and overriding the time field with one
 > of its own.  LSOFT is generating the 6 0's not Blackberrys.
> 
> My engineer has been in contact with one of the LSOFT VP's and I am 
 > told a fix is being looked into?
> 
> 

For what it's worth, L-Soft's products are not the only ones which do not
accomodate the Blackberry's non-standard date headers. Some spam filters are
triggered by the non-standard date header. In the long run, it would be less
costly and time-consuming for everyone if the folks at Blackberry would simply
fix their BAD (Broken As Designed) email client.

<rant>
This situation reflects an attitude which has become the norm, rather than the
exception, in the software industry. Big companies ignore standards, do things
their own way, expect everyone else to modify their products to accept the
deviant behavior, and rely on apologists to rationalize this arrogance by 
pointing out that the offender has a significant share of the market. I suspect
that the corporate moguls who make these decisions were either schoolyard
bullies who have not changed their behavior, or victims of schoolyard bullies
who, in some warped way, believe they are getting even.
</rant>

--
Paul Russell
Senior Systems Administrator
OIT Messaging Services Team
University of Notre Dame