What is the protocal for GMT offset in SMTP (e-mail) header time-stamp?
Mail Man
with a single GMT offset as defined by the Time Zone properties in the
system's clock / calendar interface or setup window.
For the Eastern Time Zone (US / Canada) that is set as GMT - 5 hours.
The DST rules for that zone specifies that a bias of + 1 hour start the
second sunday in march and end the first sunday in november.
But does that mean that those systems will alter their time-stamping
systems such that they change both their clock-time (add 1 hour at 2 am)
*AND* change their time-zone bias (from GMT -5 to GMT -4) ???
As far as I can tell, windows systems do not change their zone bias from
-5 to -4.
The tzedit.exe program (which allows the DST rules to edited or
modified) does not seem to allow for a change in the GMT bias. Windows
systems that perform the DST time-change correctly don't seem to alter
their GMT bias from -5 to -4.
I believe that any windows e-mail client or mail server that creates or
handles SMTP messages will (or does) continue to time-stamp messages
headers with GMT -05:00 instead of GMT -04:00. This causes an apparent
1-hour future time-shift of the messages.
Am I right in this observation?
Does the Windows operating system change it's GMT offset in response to
DST? When application programs request the current date and time on a
Windows system, does the OS report back a GMT offset of -5, or -4 during
the DST period?
Sam
> As far as I know, Windows (perhaps any version of windows) is configured
> with a single GMT offset as defined by the Time Zone properties in the
> system's clock / calendar interface or setup window.
>
> For the Eastern Time Zone (US / Canada) that is set as GMT - 5 hours.
>
> The DST rules for that zone specifies that a bias of + 1 hour start the
> second sunday in march and end the first sunday in november.
>
> But does that mean that those systems will alter their time-stamping
> systems such that they change both their clock-time (add 1 hour at 2 am)
> *AND* change their time-zone bias (from GMT -5 to GMT -4) ???
>
> As far as I can tell, windows systems do not change their zone bias from
> -5 to -4.
I'm not really familiar with what goes on in the Windows world, but on Unix
this is all very simple. Unix's internal system clock runs on GMT, and the
timezone setting is simply the offset from GMT.
Therefore, the current local time is computed simply by applying the current
GMT offset to the system clock. The fact that the real system clock runs on
GMT is not something that anybody cares about. Whenever the current time, or
some other time, is shown, the appropriate offset from GMT gets applied to
the time value, and the result is presented for consumption by human
eyeballs.
Changing a server's timezone involves merely changing an environment
variable. There's no change applied to the system clock. It always runs on
GMT, only the effective offset changes, a separate setting. On Unix, one
process may run with its effective timezone being Eastern time, and a
different process running at the same time have its effective timezone
environment variable specifying Pacific time. The processes would, at the
same time, always see their local time being three hours apart, but there's
still only one system clock, on GMT.
The "DST rules", as you call them, merely specify when the current effective
timezone offset changes. Nothing out of the ordinary happens when, to us
humans, the current timezone offset changes. The internal system clock
continues to run on GMT, and only the effective GMT offset changes.
The timezone rules are a little bit more flexible than just "on such and
such Sunday of such and such month". Timezone rules change occasionally --
as they did a couple of years ago, so that, in the United States, the
so-called "Standard Time" is now in effect for a lesser part of the year
than the, presumably, non-standard time, but that's a different kind of
insanity.
To simplify, the time zone rules are a boring list of, basically, the
following data for the America/New_York timezone (a.k.a. Eastern Time):
…
On 01 Nov 2009 06:00:00 GMT, GMT offset -0500 is in effect
On 14 Mar 2010 07:00:00 GMT, GMT offset -0400 is in effect
On 07 Nov 2010 06:00:00 GMT, GMT offset -0500 is in effect
…
And so on, starting at the dawn of time, and ending when our sun blows up.
That, to oversimplify, is how this single timezone get defined. You can find
more information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tz_database
Therefore, on precisely 14 Mar 2010 06:59:59 GMT, GMT offset -0500 was in
effect, therefore the local time was 14 Mar 2010 01:59:59 -0500.
Nothing unusual happened a second later. The system clock advanced to 14 Mar
2010 07:00:00 GMT, and that's all. At this time, GMT offset -0400 is in
effect, and the local time is 14 Mar 2010 03:00:00 -0400.
Later this year, specifically on 07 Nov 2010 05:59:59 GMT, the GMT offset
will still be -0400, and the local time will be 07 Nov 2010 01:59:59 -0400.
One second later will be 07 Nov 2010 06:00:00 GMT, the GMT offset in effect
will be -0500, and the local time will be 07 Nov 2010 01:00:00 -0500.
Internally, time is always kept in GMT, and gets translated to local time
whenever it needs to be shown for human consumption. The opposite process is
also occasionally needed: taking the local time and mapping it back to GMT.
> I believe that any windows e-mail client or mail server that creates or
> handles SMTP messages will (or does) continue to time-stamp messages
> headers with GMT -05:00 instead of GMT -04:00. This causes an apparent
> 1-hour future time-shift of the messages.
>
> Am I right in this observation?
Probably not. I do recall there's a knob that specifies whether daylight
time is in effect, or not.
A sane operating system merely gives the application the current system
clock time in GMT, and a library function that converts between GMT and
local time, using whatever timezone the application wants to use, which is
the system default timezone, most of the time. The local time information
also includes the offset from GMT in effect, which goes directly into the
±NNNN portion of the timestamp.
My mail applications simply take the current system time, convert it to
localtime, and the results are shoved directly into the Date: header,
verbatim. They fit right in. No confusion whatsoever.
Similarly, when my application consume someone else's Date: header, such as
a Date: header in someone else's email, with some arbitrary timezone:
Well, whatever the timezone is, note that the Date: header conveniently
includes the actual ±HHMM offset, in the sender's timezone (ignoring, for
the moment, some ancient Date: headers that references explicit US timezone
names). So, based on the literal date, time, and offset given directly in
the Date: header, applying the offset to the literal date and time gives me
the GMT time. Then, the same localtime function converts it back into my
application's local time. So, whatever time was the sender's local time, my
application always displays the corresponding local time for the recipient.
Mail Man
> > As far as I can tell, windows systems do not change their zone
> > bias from -5 to -4.
>
> I'm not really familiar with what goes on in the Windows world,
Which makes you or your position somewhat rare in the IT world
> but on Unix this is all very simple.
Any given machine (unix or otherwise) must know two things:
a) it's "normal" GMT offset, as dictated by it's timezone
b) it's daylight-savings-time strategy - if any.
If some form of DST kicks in for a given computer, the simple thing for
it to do is to just change it's GMT offset. When it needs to generate a
human-useful time output, it simply applies the GMT offset to it's
internal clock (which is always running at GMTime).
When a machine generates a time-stamp for e-mail, then it stamps it with
the current local time, and adds the GMT offset to complete the stamp.
That way, when any other machine decodes the stamp, it can reference it
back to GMT, then it can display it in terms of the it's own time -
which it knows with respect to GMT.
> Changing a server's timezone involves merely changing an environment
> variable. There's no change applied to the system clock.
I'm not so sure that Windows systems change their GMT offset during DST.
> > I believe that any windows e-mail client or mail server that
> > creates or handles SMTP messages will (or does) continue to
> > time-stamp messages headers with GMT -05:00 instead of GMT
> > -04:00. This causes an apparent 1-hour future time-shift of
> > the messages.
> >
> > Am I right in this observation?
>
> Probably not. I do recall there's a knob that specifies whether
> daylight time is in effect, or not.
I'm seeing lots of problems with Microsoft Outlook )on various versions
of Windows) and how it's displaying e-mail recieved times ever since EST
started.
Sam
> Sam wrote:
>
>> > As far as I can tell, windows systems do not change their zone
>> > bias from -5 to -4.
>>
>> I'm not really familiar with what goes on in the Windows world,
>
> Which makes you or your position somewhat rare in the IT world
That's debatable. There are far more Unix and Linux servers in the entire
world -- including your Usenet server, news.aioe.org, than there are Windows
machine.
>> Changing a server's timezone involves merely changing an environment
>> variable. There's no change applied to the system clock.
>
> I'm not so sure that Windows systems change their GMT offset during DST.
I'm fairly certain that there is some dim concept that a different GMT
offser would apply during DST. Otherwise, Windows is even more brain damaged
than I suspected.
>> > Am I right in this observation?
>>
>> Probably not. I do recall there's a knob that specifies whether
>> daylight time is in effect, or not.
>
> I'm seeing lots of problems with Microsoft Outlook )on various versions
> of Windows) and how it's displaying e-mail recieved times ever since EST
> started.
Sorry to hear that.
Fritz Wuehler
> > I'm not really familiar with what goes on in the Windows world,
>
> Which makes you or your position somewhat rare in the IT world
Your point was? At the top of your head, Windows-boy!
The point is Windows isn't important. Nobody serious about computing uses
it for anything. Oh, for games it's quite fun. But not for getting real
work done...
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
I'm not really familiar with what goes on in the Windows world, but on Unix this is all very simple.
Here's
something that may familiarize you to an extent. The MSDN Library
covers the system APIs such as GetTimeZoneInformation()
and GetLocalTime(),
and the
Win32 concept of local time.
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
I'm not really familiar with what goes on in the Windows world, but on Unix this is all very simple. [... Unix explained ...]
Any given machine (unix or otherwise) must know two things:
a) it's "normal" GMT offset, as dictated by it's timezone
b) it's daylight-savings-time strategy - if any.
No, it mustn't. Sam just gave you an explanation of the way that
Unix works, which doesn't involve a machine-wide "GMT offset" nor a
machine-wide "DST strategy" at all. Timezone offsets and DST rules are
purely process-local things, that can vary from process to
process, per the setting of an environment variable.
Windows and Unix have very different paradigms, here, with Windows still firmly entrenched in the DOS Think way of keeping time, where these things are machine-wide and affect the hardware RTC. This is of course why Sam's response really has little bearing on what happens in Win32 MUAs, albeit that xyr overall point — that MUAs just call the API functions for obtaining local time and the current local time offset from UTC, use whatever they're given, and the date header comes out fine — still applies.
David Schwartz
newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote:
> No, it mustn't. Sam just gave you an explanation of the way that Unix works,
> which doesn't involve a machine-wide "GMT offset" nor a machine-wide
> "DST strategy" at all. Timezone offsets and DST rules are purely
> process-local things, that can vary from process to process, per the
> setting of an environment variable.
Just to clarify, pretty much every UNIX system *does* have a machine-
wide GMT offset and a machine-wide DST strategy. They just use them
only in very rare cases where there is no other option. They consider
this a horrible, awful thing implemented only because some things can
be done no other way -- for example, implementing FAT32 in the kernel.
From Linux (example code from linux/time.h and fs/udf/udftime.c):
struct timezone {
int tz_minuteswest; /* minutes west of Greenwich */
int tz_dsttime; /* type of dst correction */
};
[...]
extern struct timezone sys_tz;
[...]
offset = -sys_tz.tz_minuteswest;
[...]
ts.tv_sec += offset * 60;
And from netfilter/xt_time.c:
if (minutes < 0) /* east of Greenwich */
printk(KERN_INFO KBUILD_MODNAME
": kernel timezone is +%02d%02d\n",
-minutes / 60, -minutes % 60);
else /* west of Greenwich */
printk(KERN_INFO KBUILD_MODNAME
": kernel timezone is -%02d%02d\n",
minutes / 60, minutes % 60);
DS
Mail Man
> >> I'm not really familiar with what goes on in the Windows world,
> >
> > Which makes you or your position somewhat rare in the IT world
>
> That's debatable.
It's highly likely that your position would not exist except for the
fact that there exists many people using Windows and those windows
systems interact with servers running Linux / Unix.
You may find linux/unix superior in many ways over windows (and I don't
argue that) but it's undisputable that many of those linux/unix servers
exist to serve people and machines running windows. Hence an IT
administrator or sys-admin usually must know about or deal with the
correct inter-operatiblity of these various platforms.
> There are far more Unix and Linux servers in the entire world --
> including your Usenet server, news.aioe.org, than there are
> Windows machine.
Are you stating that there are more Unix/Linux servers than there are
machines running Windows, or than there are servers running Windows?
Mail Man
> > > I'm not really familiar with what goes on in the Windows world,
> >
> > Which makes you or your position somewhat rare in the IT world
>
> Your point was? At the top of your head, Windows-boy!
Read my last reply to Sam for an explanation of my point.
> The point is Windows isn't important.
What kind of joke statement is that?
If it wasn't for millions of PC's running windows, then most servers
wouldn't need to exist. I can say that, without needing to admit that
windows is a horribly-designed operating system.
> Nobody serious about computing uses it for anything.
I don't know too many people that use their computers for "computing".
They use their computers to accomplish tasks, such as document and
graphic creation / editing, message communication, multimedia viewing,
entertainment, etc.
> Oh, for games it's quite fun. But not for getting real
> work done...
Yea - I guess that's why Linux and open office is the predominant OS in
commercial, institutional and SOHO environments.
Sam
> Sam wrote:
>
>> >> I'm not really familiar with what goes on in the Windows world,
>> >
>> > Which makes you or your position somewhat rare in the IT world
>>
>> That's debatable.
>
> It's highly likely that your position would not exist except for the
> fact that there exists many people using Windows and those windows
> systems interact with servers running Linux / Unix.
My position does not involve Windows on either the server side or the client
side.
> You may find linux/unix superior in many ways over windows (and I don't
> argue that) but it's undisputable that many of those linux/unix servers
> exist to serve people and machines running windows. Hence an IT
> administrator or sys-admin usually must know about or deal with the
> correct inter-operatiblity of these various platforms.
That may be true for some "IT administrators or sys-admins". However it is
not true in every case. Furthermore, there are plenty of jobs in IT in
addition to administrators and sys-admins. Any assumption that I'm either an
IT administrator or an sysadmin would reveal a fundamental lack of
understanding.
>> There are far more Unix and Linux servers in the entire world --
>> including your Usenet server, news.aioe.org, than there are
>> Windows machine.
>
> Are you stating that there are more Unix/Linux servers than there are
> machines running Windows, or than there are servers running Windows?
A raw number comparison is generally meaningless, because of the entirely
different natures of both ecosystems. It is fairly common, for example, to
have a single multihomed Linux server run a squid cache for locally
originated web traffic, run Apache to serve public web pages, a mail server
for handling incoming and outgoing mail, and bind, to provide DNS resolution
for the LAN. Maybe even Asterisk, for voice-over-IP.
Good luck trying to get Exchange, IIS, Active Directory, and some web
caching proxy running on a single Windows server that also functions as a
multihomed router.
Sam
>> Oh, for games it's quite fun. But not for getting real
>> work done...
>
> Yea - I guess that's why Linux and open office is the predominant OS in
> commercial, institutional and SOHO environments.
Yes, it is. Both Windows and Solaris are considered legacy platforms in
contemporary data centers.
Frank Slootweg
> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>
> > > > I'm not really familiar with what goes on in the Windows world,
> > >
> > > Which makes you or your position somewhat rare in the IT world
> >
> > Your point was? At the top of your head, Windows-boy!
>
> Read my last reply to Sam for an explanation of my point.
>
> > The point is Windows isn't important.
>
> What kind of joke statement is that?
>
> If it wasn't for millions of PC's running windows, then most servers
> wouldn't need to exist.
*Historically*, it's probably the other way around! Without UNIX
servers, there wouldn't have been "millions of PC's running windows",
because there would never have been any Internet, mail and web worth
mentioning.
[...]
Mail Man
> > > The point is Windows isn't important.
> >
> > What kind of joke statement is that?
> >
> > If it wasn't for millions of PC's running windows, then most
> > servers wouldn't need to exist.
>
> *Historically*, it's probably the other way around! Without UNIX
> servers, there wouldn't have been "millions of PC's running
> windows"
The development and introduction of the consumer-grade PC back in the
late 1970's and early 1980's did not require or depend on the existance
of unix servers.
Consumer PC's of that era were communicating with each other via BBS,
fido, etc, and did not require the interconnectivity of the (then)
embryonic TCP/IP-based internet to exist.
> because there would never have been any Internet, mail and web
> worth mentioning.
Modem-based communication for PC's (as previously mentioned) was already
in place by the very early 1980's, and by today would have been
developed along lines we can only imagine had the internet not existed
or have been cross-platform-deployed as widely as it is now.
It is a complete fallacy to say that Unix led to servers which led to
the internet which led to windows-based consumer PC's.
One thing that can be said is that consumer-grade windows PC's has led
to a wide(r) distribution and availablility of DSL service, and a
corresponding price drop for anyone connecting a machine to the internet
(even someone running a linux/unix server).
And today, this statement is certainly true:
If it wasn't for millions of PC's running windows, then most
(linux/unix) servers wouldn't need to exist.
Frank Slootweg
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > > > The point is Windows isn't important.
> > >
> > > What kind of joke statement is that?
> > >
> > > If it wasn't for millions of PC's running windows, then most
> > > servers wouldn't need to exist.
> >
> > *Historically*, it's probably the other way around! Without UNIX
> > servers, there wouldn't have been "millions of PC's running
> > windows"
>
> The development and introduction of the consumer-grade PC back in the
> late 1970's and early 1980's did not require or depend on the existance
> of unix servers.
There were *some* *consumer*-grade PCs in the late 1970's and early
1980's. *Most* PCs were not really "personal" let alone consumer/private,
but let's not quibble about that, because that wasn't the point I was
making. And note that we were talking about PC's running *Windows*. If
we combine the two - Windows *and* consumer-grade - , there were very,
very few in that era.
[...]
> It is a complete fallacy to say that Unix led to servers which led to
> the internet which led to windows-based consumer PC's.
You said "millions of PC's running windows" and obviously meant
"hundreds of millions" (billions?). *That* is the point I'm arguing, not
your backpedalled version.
[...]
> And today, this statement is certainly true:
>
> If it wasn't for millions of PC's running windows, then most
> (linux/unix) servers wouldn't need to exist.
In *numbers*, correct. In *percentage*, wrong.
David F. Skoll
> If it wasn't for millions of PC's running windows, then most
> (linux/unix) servers wouldn't need to exist.
Meh. Windows was marginally acceptable in the pre-Internet era.
However, the system has had its day and should gracefully die,
yielding to better-designed systems. Ironically, even though
UNIX-like systems are older than Windows, they have proven
better-designed, more nimble, more secure, and more flexible than the
lumbering beast Redmond sees fit to foist on the world every few
years.
-- David.
Mail Man
> Ironically, even though UNIX-like systems are older than Windows,
> they have proven better-designed, more nimble, more secure, and
> more flexible than the lumbering beast Redmond sees fit to foist
> on the world every few years.
I guess that's why the majority of home and soho PC's are running unix.
Mail Man
> > Yea - I guess that's why Linux and open office is the predominant
> > OS in commercial, institutional and SOHO environments.
>
> Yes, it is. Both Windows and Solaris are considered legacy platforms
> in contemporary data centers.
Since when were we talking about data centers?
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
>>>
>>> The point is Windows isn't important. Nobody serious about
>>> computing uses it for anything. Oh, for games it's quite fun. But
>>>
>>
>> If it wasn't for millions of PC's running windows, then most servers
>> wouldn't need to exist.
>>
> *Historically*, it's probably the other way around! Without UNIX
> servers, there wouldn't have been "millions of PC's running windows",
> because there would never have been any Internet, mail and web worth
> mentioning.
>
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
Internet and were marginally acceptable?
Frank Slootweg
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 9:12 am, Frank Slootweg <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > Mail Man <M...@man.com> wrote:
> > > Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>
> > > > The point is Windows isn't important.
> >
> > > What kind of joke statement is that?
> >
> > > If it wasn't for millions of PC's running windows, then most servers
> > > wouldn't need to exist.
> >
> > *Historically*, it's probably the other way around! Without UNIX
> > servers, there wouldn't have been "millions of PC's running windows",
> > because there would never have been any Internet, mail and web worth
> > mentioning.
>
> There were millions of PCs running Windows before there was a World
> Wide Web.
Straw man. I said "Internet, mail and web", i.e. I mentioned the web
*last*. (MS-)Windows does *not* pre-date the Internet, let alone mail.
[...]
Frank Slootweg
Come on, Jonathan! I was talking about *history*, not newbies! :-) G&D
Mail Man
> > There were millions of PCs running Windows before there was a
> > World Wide Web.
>
> Straw man. I said "Internet, mail and web", i.e. I mentioned the
> web *last*. (MS-)Windows does *not* pre-date the Internet, let
> alone mail.
The internet and SMTP e-mail had nothing to do with PC's becoming
popular for personal and home / soho uses.
PC's running dos, Win-3.x and Win-95 became popular without having an
internet connection nor e-mail available to their owners.
As I said, and which you keep ignoring, there were other messaging
systems available for PC's in the late 1970's and during the 1980's that
had nothing to do with the internet or systems running unix.
You realize this, because you refuse to label those systems from the
late 1970's and early 80's as "personal computers" - for reasons which
you can't coherently defend.
Sam
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>> > There were millions of PCs running Windows before there was a
>> > World Wide Web.
>>
>> Straw man. I said "Internet, mail and web", i.e. I mentioned the
>> web *last*. (MS-)Windows does *not* pre-date the Internet, let
>> alone mail.
>
> The internet and SMTP e-mail had nothing to do with PC's becoming
> popular for personal and home / soho uses.
Indeed. Without the Internet and SMTP e-mail, PCs would be just as popular
as they are now.
> PC's running dos, Win-3.x and Win-95 became popular without having an
> internet connection nor e-mail available to their owners.
Gee, I guess that Trumpet Winsock was a figment of my imagination.
> As I said, and which you keep ignoring, there were other messaging
> systems available for PC's in the late 1970's and during the 1980's that
> had nothing to do with the internet or systems running unix.
Yes, I forgot -- AOL and Compuserve, in their early days, ran on DOS.
Frank Slootweg
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > > There were millions of PCs running Windows before there was a
> > > World Wide Web.
> >
> > Straw man. I said "Internet, mail and web", i.e. I mentioned the
> > web *last*. (MS-)Windows does *not* pre-date the Internet, let
> > alone mail.
>
> The internet and SMTP e-mail had nothing to do with PC's becoming
> popular for personal and home / soho uses.
And that's *another* straw man.
> PC's running dos, Win-3.x and Win-95 became popular without having an
> internet connection nor e-mail available to their owners.
>
> As I said, and which you keep ignoring, there were other messaging
> systems available for PC's in the late 1970's and during the 1980's that
> had nothing to do with the internet or systems running unix.
>
> You realize this, because you refuse to label those systems from the
> late 1970's and early 80's as "personal computers" - for reasons which
> you can't coherently defend.
And that's *yet* another straw man.
But more to the point: Exactly which part of "let's not quibble about
that, because that wasn't the point I was making" wasn't coherent enough
for you?
You keep side-stepping that my response was to your "If it wasn't for
millions of PC's running windows, then most servers wouldn't need to
exist.", i.e *millions* and *Windows* (not DOS).
So please stick to one issue at a time, perhaps then there can be some
progress.
David F. Skoll
>> Meh. Windows was marginally acceptable in the pre-Internet era.
> What versions of Microsoft Windows are you thinking both pre-dated the
> Internet and were marginally acceptable?
No version of Windows predated the Internet, but by the "pre-Internet era",
I meant before the Internet became generally popular with average consumers.
I should have specified that more precisely; I meant before about 1995.
And Windows 3.1 was marginally acceptable if you were used to DOS.
Regards,
David.
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
>>>>
>>>> The point is Windows isn't important. Nobody serious about
>>>> computing uses it for anything. Oh, for games it's quite fun. But
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it wasn't for millions of PC's running windows, then most servers
>>> wouldn't need to exist.
>>>
>> *Historically*, it's probably the other way around! Without UNIX
>> servers, there wouldn't have been "millions of PC's running windows",
>> because there would never have been any Internet, mail and web
>> worth mentioning.
>>
>
Oooh! Oooh! I know this move in the dance. Let me.
The World Wide Web is neither the Internet nor mail. It's not even Fidonet.
Quadibloc
newsgro...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote:
probably quoting me:
> > There were millions of PCs running Windows before there was a World
> > Wide Web. [...]
>
> Oooh! Oooh! I know this move in the dance. Let me.
>
> The World Wide Web is neither the Internet nor mail. It's not even Fidonet.
Oh, that's true. There was an Internet before that fellow at CERN...
ah, yes, Tim Berners-Lee... invented the WWW to go on it. People could
use E-mail, they could use USENET - why, where this very forum is
located - and, for many of the functions the WWW now performs, they
could use Gopher, or even just FTP.
However, until there _was_ a World-Wide Web, while home computers
could go on-line with such services as America Online, CompuServe, and
The Source... which were, in those days, somewhat expensive... or on-
line on a rather smaller scale with local Bulletin Board Services...
you couldn't really sign up for an ISP to get on the Internet from
home.
John Savard
Frank Slootweg
[...]
> However, until there _was_ a World-Wide Web, while home computers
> could go on-line with such services as America Online, CompuServe, and
> The Source... which were, in those days, somewhat expensive... or on-
> line on a rather smaller scale with local Bulletin Board Services...
> you couldn't really sign up for an ISP to get on the Internet from
> home.
There *was* (consumer-style) Internet access from home *before* the
WWW. Of course not on a large scale, because it was only used by 'geeks'
like us, but it *was* available. I don't remember/think that they were
*called" ISPs, but they *were* ISPs.
When I've web access again :-), I may have a look if I can find some
reference(s).
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
>>>>>
>>>>> If it wasn't for millions of PC's running windows, then most
>>>>> servers wouldn't need to exist.
>>>>>
>>>> *Historically*, it's probably the other way around! Without UNIX
>>>> servers, there wouldn't have been "millions of PC's running
>>>> windows", because there would never have been any Internet, mail
>>>> and web worth mentioning.
>>>>
>>>
>> Straw man. I said "Internet, mail and web", i.e. I mentioned the web
>> *last*. (MS-)Windows does *not* pre-date the Internet, let alone mail.
>>
>
> As I said [...] there were other messaging systems available for PC's
> the internet or systems running unix.
>
Windows, and some indeed were those very Unix servers that M. Slootweg
mentioned. Georgia OnLine famously used Unix. GEnie ran on GCOS.
CompuServe ran on DEC equipment. Prestel used GEC 4000s. The WELL used
several Unices, replacing its VAX 750 runing Unix with a Sequent Unix
box in 1988, for example. Byte Information eXchange was based upon
CoSy, running on MC68000 boxes and DEC Alphas. CoSy itself started out
at the University of Guelph on a VAX, moved to a PDP-11/34, and ended up
on a UTS partition on an IBM mainframe. CIX, in the U.K., ran CoSy on
Unix machines.
Patrick Scheible
> And Windows 3.1 was marginally acceptable if you were used to DOS.
With third-party additions, Windows 3.1 could act as a terminal to a
real computer.
-- Patrick
Joe Makowiec
> There *was* (consumer-style) Internet access from home *before* the
> WWW. Of course not on a large scale, because it was only used by
> 'geeks' like us, but it *was* available. I don't remember/think that
> they were *called" ISPs, but they *were* ISPs.
>
> When I've web access again :-), I may have a look if I can find some
> reference(s).
According to Wikipedia, CompuServe started selling dialup access to their
network ca 1982.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompuServe#Selling_connectivity
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Joe Pfeiffer
That was what came on my Compaq Concerto (25MHz 486!), which was my
first laptop (I was *really* late in getting into laptops). I lasted
about a day before I started looking into Unix-like alternatives -- I
still don't remember why I picked Linux over FreeBSD, but I've been very
happy ever since.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> However, until there _was_ a World-Wide Web, while home computers
> could go on-line with such services as America Online, CompuServe, and
> The Source... which were, in those days, somewhat expensive... or on-
> line on a rather smaller scale with local Bulletin Board Services...
> you couldn't really sign up for an ISP to get on the Internet from
> home.
Dial up access was available in the UK before the WWW but it was
expensive. It got cheap (ten pounds a month) when Demon Internet launched
which was coincidentally about the same time as the WWW was getting started
and a couple of years before the W3C was formed. The standard DOS
application for Demon access was a modified version of KA9Q providing
email, ftp, telnet and usenet - the WWW wasn't important enough to bother
with.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Hadron
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 12:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> However, until there _was_ a World-Wide Web, while home computers
>> could go on-line with such services as America Online, CompuServe, and
>> The Source... which were, in those days, somewhat expensive... or on-
>> line on a rather smaller scale with local Bulletin Board Services...
>> you couldn't really sign up for an ISP to get on the Internet from
>> home.
>
> Dial up access was available in the UK before the WWW but it was
> expensive. It got cheap (ten pounds a month) when Demon Internet launched
> which was coincidentally about the same time as the WWW was getting started
> and a couple of years before the W3C was formed. The standard DOS
> application for Demon access was a modified version of KA9Q providing
> email, ftp, telnet and usenet - the WWW wasn't important enough to bother
> with.
Are you related to Creepy Chris? He tries fudging wikipedia articles too
with the same amount of success.
What gave it away was the accidental inclusion of the "W3C".
No context old son.
Peter Köhlmann
Another fine "true linux advocacy post" from the
"true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "./configure hero", "emacs user",
"swapfile expert", "X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin",
"defragger professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven", "time
coordinator", "email sage", "tripwire wizard", "Pulseaudio rockstar",
"XORG sorcerer", "filesystem pro", "Nathans second chance evangelist" and
"OSS culling committee chairman" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka
Richard, aka Damian O'Leary, aka Steve Townsend, aka Ubuntu King
--
Proposed Additions to the PDP-11 Instruction Set:
BBW Branch Both Ways
BEW Branch Either Way
BBBF Branch on Bit Bucket Full
BH Branch and Hang
Dave
"Tim Streater" <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote in message
news:timstreater-D726...@news.individual.net...
> In article <IU.D20100404.T...@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost>,
> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePoll...@NTLWorld.COM>
I would say NT 3.5...
> None, in fact.
>
> W95 was just about usable and you really wanted W98.
>
> Meanwhile I'd been using Word V4 for Mac back in the late 80s, some ten
> years earlier.
>
> --
> Tim
>
> "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
> imposed,
> nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
Thor Kottelin
news:20100405072234....@eircom.net...
> The standard DOS
> application for Demon access was a modified version of KA9Q providing
> email, ftp, telnet and usenet - the WWW wasn't important enough to
> bother
> with.
At some point, there were email robots from whom one could request Web
pages. I did it a lot of times while I was on UUCP.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/internet-services/access-via-email/
Follow-ups trimmed.
--
Thor Kottelin
http://www.anta.net/
Chris Ahlstrom
Let me apologize on behalf of COLA for "Hadron". He is one of the small
group of village idiots that infest our little newsgroup/pub. A fellow
with essentially nothing of substance to contribute, as you have no doubt
gathered.
--
Make a wish, it might come true.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
I was a Demon customer in early 1993, I priced up Pipex a year or
so earlier and decided I couldn't afford internet access at home at their
rates. Earlier still I looked into getting a UUCP slot at UKC. I had KA0Q
running on a DOS box for a few months before I replaced it with SLS Linux
running the 0.94 kernel, I switched to FreeBSD-1.1 towards the end of 1993.
My first experience of the WWW was by telnet to www.cern.ch.
This isn't fudging Wikipedia articles sunshine it's memory.
> What gave it away was the accidental inclusion of the "W3C".
>
> No context old son.
The formation of the W3C was a *very* important milestone in the
early development and rise of the WWW. Without it the WWW may very well
have disintegrated in a welter of incompatible variants long before it
became noticed as the one corner of the internet that was not actively
resistant to attempts to use it for commercial purposes end exploded.
Nothing accidental about the inclusion old son!
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
> Let me apologize on behalf of COLA for "Hadron". He is one of the small
> group of village idiots that infest our little newsgroup/pub. A fellow
Argh - I hadn't realised it was Hadron Quark. I've encountered it
before.
jmfbahciv
> On 04 Apr 2010 in alt.folklore.computers, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>> There *was* (consumer-style) Internet access from home *before* the
>> WWW. Of course not on a large scale, because it was only used by
>> 'geeks' like us, but it *was* available. I don't remember/think that
>> they were *called" ISPs, but they *were* ISPs.
>>
>> When I've web access again :-), I may have a look if I can find some
>> reference(s).
>
> According to Wikipedia, CompuServe started selling dialup access to their
> network ca 1982.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompuServe#Selling_connectivity
>
I was dialing access to PDP-10s in 1969.
/BAH
Frank Slootweg
Probably both years are wrong. The discussion was about
*consumer-style* *Internet* access.
AFAIK, the CompuServe reference fails, because it was not Internet
access, at least not general Internet access, i.e. TCP/IP based.
Your dialing access to PDP-10s in 1969 fails, because there was *no*
Internet - consumer-style or otherwise - in 1969.
Jim Stewart
No internet, I don't know about CompuServe, but
Tymeshare might have been around and they used
PDP-10's.
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
>>>
>>> What versions of Microsoft Windows are you thinking both pre-dated
>>> the Internet and were marginally acceptable?
>>>
> I would say NT 3.5...
>
Internet, in your estimation?
Sam
The previous poster is obviously wrong. Windows NT 3.5 was released in
September of 1994. And we all know that Algore invented the Internet when he
was a US Senator. I can't locate the exact date, but Algore was in the
Senate from 1985 to 1993, so no matter which way you slice it, Windows NT
3.5 could not've pre-dated the Internet.
Dave
"Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" <J.deBoynePoll...@NTLWorld.COM> wrote
in message
news:IU.D20100405.T...@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost...
It depends on where you are. If by the "Internet" you mean a global network,
then in East Pondia it didn't "really" arrive until the launch of Freeserve
in 1996 a full 12 months after NT 3.5. Memory is hazy and I guess I must
have had some kind of access before then, but I honestly can't remember with
who (should that be whom)....
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
"Dave" <g8...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" <J.deBoynePoll...@NTLWorld.COM>
> wrote in message
> news:IU.D20100405.T...@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost...
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> What versions of Microsoft Windows are you thinking both pre-dated
> >>>> the Internet and were marginally acceptable?
> >>>>
> >> I would say NT 3.5...
> >>
> > And by how many years did Microsoft Windows NT 3.5 pre-date the
> > Internet, in your estimation?
> >
>
> It depends on where you are. If by the "Internet" you mean a global
> network, then in East Pondia it didn't "really" arrive until the launch
> of Freeserve in 1996 a full 12 months after NT 3.5.
Demon arrived in 1992 - that was when the price for dialup dropped
from stupidly expensive from Pipex to a reasonable tenner a month.
Esra Sdrawkcab
And did he also give his name to the AlGore Rhythm method?
--
Nuns! Nuns! Reverse
Tony Quinn
<g8...@yahoo.com> writes
If by "East Pondia" you mean the UK, then my earliest archived Usenet
posting is from June 1st 1993, and was via dial-up to Demon.
--
If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
respect their delusionary state.
Dave
news:YweGljsc...@tqvideo.co.uk...
> In message <o_idnf8Mmt5NeCfW...@eclipse.net.uk>, Dave
> <g8...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>>
>>"Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" <J.deBoynePoll...@NTLWorld.COM>
>>wrote in message
>>news:IU.D20100405.T...@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What versions of Microsoft Windows are you thinking both pre-dated
>>>>>> the Internet and were marginally acceptable?
>>>>>>
>>>> I would say NT 3.5...
>>>>
>>> And by how many years did Microsoft Windows NT 3.5 pre-date the
>>> Internet, in your estimation?
>>>
>>
>>It depends on where you are. If by the "Internet" you mean a global
>>network, then in East Pondia it didn't "really" arrive until the launch of
>>Freeserve in 1996 a full 12 months after NT 3.5. Memory is hazy and I
>>guess I must have had some kind of access before then, but I honestly
>>can't remember with who (should that be whom)....
>
> If by "East Pondia" you mean the UK, then my earliest archived Usenet
> posting is from June 1st 1993, and was via dial-up to Demon.
>
Oddly I can see from here:-
http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/dx/text/rec.radio.info/6000-6099/6038
that I made posts in 1994 (g4ugm is my current call, g8mqw is my first
call) but only from my work address....
Charles Richmond
ISTM the claim "Al Gore invented the internet" comes from his
sponsoring of legislation that allowed *commercial* use of the
networks. Back when, commerce on the net was outlawed in the U.S.
So in a sense, the *commercial* use of the internet... and thus
the modern internet as we know it... does owe a lot to Al Gore.
--
+----------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond |
| |
| plano dot net at aquaporin4 dot com |
+----------------------------------------+
Sam
> Sam wrote:
>> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard writes:
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What versions of Microsoft Windows are you thinking both pre-dated
>>>>>> the Internet and were marginally acceptable?
>>>>>>
>>>> I would say NT 3.5...
>>>>
>>> And by how many years did Microsoft Windows NT 3.5 pre-date the
>>> Internet, in your estimation?
>>
>> The previous poster is obviously wrong. Windows NT 3.5 was released in
>> September of 1994. And we all know that Algore invented the Internet
>> when he was a US Senator. I can't locate the exact date, but Algore was
>> in the Senate from 1985 to 1993, so no matter which way you slice it,
>> Windows NT 3.5 could not've pre-dated the Internet.
>>
>>
>
> ISTM the claim "Al Gore invented the internet" comes from his
----====####>>>> WHOOOSH <<<<####====----
> sponsoring of legislation that allowed *commercial* use of the
> networks. Back when, commerce on the net was outlawed in the U.S.
> So in a sense, the *commercial* use of the internet... and thus
> the modern internet as we know it... does owe a lot to Al Gore.
Well done. You've completed your "Organizing For America" assignment for
today.
LC's No-Spam Newsreading account
> It depends on where you are. If by the "Internet" you mean a global
> network, then in East Pondia it didn't "really" arrive until the
> launch of Freeserve in 1996 a full 12 months after NT 3.5.
There are google traces of a mail sent by an internet address of mine
(here in backwater Italy, not yet Berlusconia at the time) dating June
1992. By the way, it was sent from an IBM mainframe !
At the time we had in house also a single Sun workstation (SunOS 3,
which was our first Unix workstation ... Linux came notably later).
By the way, the IBM mainframe was on a worldwide network (Bitnet) since
about 1987 (could have been on some form of national network earlier).
The first "PCs" came around more or less at the same time, sometime in
the 1990s. We had CP/M machines of obscure brand, costly IBM PC-XT and
AT, and occasional Mac's (Mac's were used to run Word :-) ).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nos...@mi.iasf.cnr.it is a newsreading account used by more persons to
avoid unwanted spam. Any mail returning to this address will be rejected.
Users can disclose their e-mail address in the article if they wish so.
Frank Slootweg
[...]
> It depends on where you are. If by the "Internet" you mean a global network,
> then in East Pondia it didn't "really" arrive until the launch of Freeserve
> in 1996 a full 12 months after NT 3.5. Memory is hazy and I guess I must
> have had some kind of access before then, but I honestly can't remember with
> who (should that be whom)....
Your qualification does not only include the "global" attribute, but
also the "consumer accessible" attribute.
The Internet was already a global network the early 1980's. My
(ex-)employer HP (Hewlett-Packard) owned (and owns) Net 15 and it was a
global network in the early 1980's, but it was mainly an Int*ra*net,
i.e. without cosumer/customer/<whatever> access.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#66 What is the protocal for GMT offset in SMTP (e-mail) header
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#68 What is the protocal for GMT offset in SMTP (e-mail) header
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#70 What is the protocal for GMT offset in SMTP (e-mail) header
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#75 What is the protocal for GMT offset in SMTP (e-mail) header header time-stamp?
some long winded discussion
The Internet Crucible v2.1 3jan90
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg00262.html
and i have previously posted v1.1 aug89 (including mention of "network
service provider"):
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#19 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?
the above mentions "long-term solutions" and dealing with the economic
considerations.
other past posts in the same thread
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#56 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#58 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#59 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#63 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#67 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?^
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#77 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?^
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#5 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?^
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#10 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?^
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#11 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?^
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#18 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?^
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#20 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?^
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#28 Is Al Gore The Father of the Internet?^
--
42yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970
David F. Skoll
> that I made posts in 1994 (g4ugm is my current call, g8mqw is my first
> call) but only from my work address....
Youngsters! :)
My first Usenet posting was in 1989.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.graphics/msg/b67d8565107d70e2
Regards,
David.
Walter Bushell
"David F. Skoll" <d...@roaringpenguin.com> wrote:
> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
>
> >> Meh. Windows was marginally acceptable in the pre-Internet era.
>
> > What versions of Microsoft Windows are you thinking both pre-dated the
> > Internet and were marginally acceptable?
>
> No version of Windows predated the Internet, but by the "pre-Internet era",
> I meant before the Internet became generally popular with average consumers.
> I should have specified that more precisely; I meant before about 1995.
>
> And Windows 3.1 was marginally acceptable if you were used to DOS.
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
Ah, that was my problem with Win 3.11; I was used to Macintosh.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Robert Bonomi
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
[sneck]
>However, until there _was_ a World-Wide Web, while home computers
>could go on-line with such services as America Online, CompuServe, and
>The Source... which were, in those days, somewhat expensive... or on-
>line on a rather smaller scale with local Bulletin Board Services...
>you couldn't really sign up for an ISP to get on the Internet from
>home.
FALSE TO FACT.
There were commercial services offering dial-up IP conectivity more
than two years before the very _first_ web software (server _or_ client)
was released. "The World" opened it's doors in 1989, the initial
release of web-ware was Novemmer, 1991. "Mosaic", the first _popular_
web-browser came out in 1993. Netscape Navigator v1.0 came out in
November of 1994.