Wrong dates shown
Dudley Brooks
decided to ask about it, since it only affects a couple of dozen
messages. I thought I had seen other threads about this, but, if so, I
can't find them.
Some e-mails have impossible dates in the Date column. For a few of
them, the actual messages *is* dated wrong, because of the sender's
settings. But the Received column also shows the wrong date (the same
date as Date) even though View>Headers>All and View>Message Source only
show correct received dates.
For others, View>Headers, View>Headesr>All, and View>Message Source show
*only* correct dates, whether date sent or date received. But the Date
column shows an impossible date and the Received column shows the same
impossible date.
James Silverton
I sometimes wonder why people keep struggling with old problems. I am
having very little trouble with Thunderbird, now 6.0.1, except that I
found it very convenient to instal the ClassicReloaded theme in 5.00.
The theme persisted with the upgrade to 6.0 on.
--
Jim Silverton,
Potomac, MD.
Mike Easter
> Some e-mails have impossible dates in the Date column.
Please define or give 3 illustrations.
--
Mike Easter
Ron Hunter
and neat, and fairly frugal with my vertical screen space.
Dudley Brooks
> Dudley Brooks wrote:
>
>> Some e-mails have impossible dates in the Date column.
And the same impossible dates in the Received column.
> Please define or give 3 illustrations.
I'll give you 21 illustrations:
There is 1 message whose date was incorrectly set by the sender as 1
January 1904. (I don't think I need to say why that's impossible, but,
of course, it's the sender's fault, not TB's fault.) Its "Received:"
date is a sensible 13 May 2002. In View>Headers>All its Date is 1/1/04
(correctly incorrect!) but there is no Received date listed. And in the
... uh, whatever the pane is called that lists Subject, From, etc., the
pane above the message pane ... the Date column and the Received column
both say 2/6/40. I suppose 2/6/40 is how the Mac OS interprets
1/1/1904, but my point is that the "Received:" date is correct in the
source but the Received column in the pane shows the same as the Date
column, rather than the actual received date.
There are 5 messages whose Source shows "Date: 27 Aug 1956" -- again,
the sender's fault. But the "Received:" dates in the source are all
correct dates in September and October 2000. In the View>Headers>All
the Dates are "correctly" 8/27/56 and the Received dates are all
correct. But in the pane, both the Date column and the Received column
show 10/3/92. Again, 10/3/92 is probably the OS's interpretation of 27
Aug 1956. But why is the Received date wrong?
In TB 2.x, which is where I first noticed the above problem, all the
messages above showed the Date and Received as future dates, which is
why I referred to them as impossible. Now in TB 3.1.x, I see that it's
showing them as possible (albeit incorrect dates) ... except that when I
sort by Date or by Received, they are listed *after* the current date,
so that evidently 10/3/92 is 10/3/2092! Again, possibly the OS's
interpretation of a too-early date, but, again, why isn't the Received
date correct, since it is correct in the Source?
And finally here's the kicker:
There are 15 messages whose "Date:" and "Received:" fields in the Source
vary from 20 June 2009 to 30 August 2011 (and whose "Received:" fields
match their "Date:" fields). In View>Headers>All, both the Date and the
Received are correct. But in the pane both the Date column and the
Received column show 12/31/69. An impossible date because it's before
the invention of e-mail. (IIRC it's also one day before the earliest
date which the Mac OS uses.) So in these messages the headers in the
Source (and the info in View>Headers>All) are absolutely correct, but
the two fields in the pane are messed up.
Ron Hunter
That is the point from which Windows counts 'ticks'.
Dudley Brooks
Windows. But the same is true for the Mac.)
The question remains: Why is TB showing me impossible dates (before the
invention of e-mail, or in the future) for messages which have *correct*
dates in the source? And for those which have incorrect dates in the
Date field in the source but correct dates in the Received field, why
does the Received column incorrectly show Date instead of Received?
Ron Hunter
extensions, or themes, and see if that helps. If not, then include the
headers of one of the messages with a bad date in a message, and some of
the people here who really understand the message headers may be able to
give you an explanation.
Thomas Boehm
> On 9/3/11 3:25 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> Dudley Brooks wrote:
>>
>>> Some e-mails have impossible dates in the Date column.
>
> And the same impossible dates in the Received column.
>
>> Please define or give 3 illustrations.
>
> I'll give you 21 illustrations:
>
> There is 1 message whose date was incorrectly set by the sender as 1
> January 1904. (I don't think I need to say why that's impossible, but,
> of course, it's the sender's fault, not TB's fault.) Its "Received:"
> date is a sensible 13 May 2002. In View>Headers>All its Date is 1/1/04
> (correctly incorrect!) but there is no Received date listed. And in the
> both say 2/6/40. I suppose 2/6/40 is how the Mac OS interprets
> 1/1/1904, but my point is that the "Received:" date is correct in the
> source but the Received column in the pane shows the same as the Date
> column, rather than the actual received date.
Can you post the EXACT Date: header here, and not what your
interpretation of it is? A date header looks like this
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:55:20 -0700
It's most likely that the sender's email client is broken and the Date:
header doesn't follow the RFCs.
The dates in each Received: header are set by the receiving mail server
and are not the same as you see in the received column in TB.
bye
Thomas
Dudley Brooks
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:31:15 0200
to
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 10:02:58 0200
They all show up in the (Sort by) Date column as "12/31/69 4:00 PM".
Could it possibly be because the GMT adjustment ("0200") doesn't have a
"+" or "-"?
> The dates in each Received: header are set by the receiving mail server
> and are not the same as you see in the received column in TB.
Dudley Brooks
> If not, then include the headers of one of the messages with a bad
> date in a message, and some of the people here who really understand
> the message headers may be able to give you an explanation.
Dudley Brooks
> On 9/9/11 12:16 PM, Thomas Boehm wrote:
>
>> Dudley Brooks wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/3/11 3:25 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dudley Brooks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Some e-mails have impossible dates in the Date column. And
>>>>> the same impossible dates in the Received column.
>>>>
>>>> Please define or give 3 illustrations.
>>>
>>> I'll give you 21 illustrations:
>>>
>>> There is 1 message whose date was incorrectly set by the sender
>>> as 1 January 1904. (I don't think I need to say why that's
>>> impossible, but, of course, it's the sender's fault, not TB's
>>> fault.) Its "Received:" date is a sensible 13 May 2002. In
>>> View>Headers>All its Date is 1/1/04 (correctly incorrect!) but
>>> there is no Received date listed. And in the .... uh, whatever
>>> the pane is called that lists Subject, From, etc., the pane above
>>> the message pane ... the Date column and the Received column both
>>> say 2/6/40. I suppose 2/6/40 is how the Mac OS interprets
>>> 1/1/1904, but my point is that the "Received:" date is correct in
>>> the source but the Received column in the pane shows the same as
>>> the Date column, rather than the actual received date.
>>
>> Can you post the EXACT Date: header here, and not what your
>> interpretation of it is? A date header looks like this
>>
>> Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:55:20 -0700
>>
>> It's most likely that the sender's email client is broken and the
>> Date: header doesn't follow the RFCs.
>
> There are 15, with dates ranging from
>
> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:31:15 0200
>
> to
>
> Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 10:02:58 0200
>
> They all show up in the (Sort by) Date column as "12/31/69 4:00 PM".
>
> Could it possibly be because the GMT adjustment ("0200") doesn't have
> a "+" or "-"?
Any opinions (or definite knowledge) on that? And if that's the cause,
is there a way to edit the source?
>> The dates in each Received: header are set by the receiving mail
>> server and are not the same as you see in the received column in
>> TB.
>
> What does TB show? The date/time when TB downloaded it?
You said that the Received in the header is not the same as in TB's
Received column. So what Received dates is TB using? Thanks.
Ralph Fox
news://news.mozilla.org/35udnbtMdvUXy-vT...@mozilla.org
> On 9/11/11 3:56 PM, Dudley Brooks wrote:
>> On 9/9/11 12:16 PM, Thomas Boehm wrote:
>>
>>> Can you post the EXACT Date: header here, and not what your
>>> interpretation of it is? A date header looks like this
>>>
>>> Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:55:20 -0700
>>>
>>> It's most likely that the sender's email client is broken and the
>>> Date: header doesn't follow the RFCs.
>>
>> There are 15, with dates ranging from
>>
>> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:31:15 0200
>>
>> to
>>
>> Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 10:02:58 0200
>>
>> They all show up in the (Sort by) Date column as "12/31/69 4:00 PM".
>>
>> Could it possibly be because the GMT adjustment ("0200") doesn't have
>> a "+" or "-"?
>
> Any opinions (or definite knowledge) on that?
adjustment caused Thunderbird to ignore the GMT adjustment provided, and
treat the rest of the date as being in my local time zone (GMT
adjustment +1200).
When I looked at the two example Date headers which you gave in your
previous message, I saw a control code before the GMT adjustment where
the "+" or "-" should have been. I am wondering if the originals had
other unexpected characters.
> And if that's the cause,
> is there a way to edit the source?
which is a text file and can be edited with caution. Close Thunderbird
before editing, and backup the file.
Each mail folder corresponds to two files, e.g. "INBOX" and "INBOX.msf".
The file to edit is the one without the ".msf" extension.
To find where the files are, go to Thunderbird's Account Settings,
Server Settings, and either the "Local directory" (near the bottom) or
the "Browse" button next to it should show the location.
>>> The dates in each Received: header are set by the receiving mail
>>> server and are not the same as you see in the received column in
>>> TB.
>>
>> What does TB show? The date/time when TB downloaded it?
>
> You said that the Received in the header is not the same as in TB's
> Received column. So what Received dates is TB using? Thanks.
the same as "Date". I have an email which the sender did not upload
until 30 minutes after the "Date" header, and "Received" is still the
same as the time in the "Date" header.
--
Kind regards
Ralph
Dudley Brooks
Ah! I didn't think to look at them any way other than with TB's
display. I'll check them out in an editor that can show *all*
characters. Thanks.
>> And if that's the cause, is there a way to edit the source?
>
> The messages in each folder are stored in a single MBOX-format file,
> which is a text file and can be edited with caution. Close
> Thunderbird before editing, and backup the file.
>
> Each mail folder corresponds to two files, e.g. "INBOX" and
> "INBOX.msf". The file to edit is the one without the ".msf"
> extension.
>
> To find where the files are, go to Thunderbird's Account Settings,
> Server Settings, and either the "Local directory" (near the bottom)
> or the "Browse" button next to it should show the location.
Thanks. Actually, I just remembered that in a much earlier version of
TB I used to have an extension called Edit Headers, or something like
that, which let you edit manually, more-or-less safely. I'll check
whether that extension is still available.
>>>> The dates in each Received: header are set by the receiving
>>>> mail server and are not the same as you see in the received
>>>> column in TB.
>>>
>>> What does TB show? The date/time when TB downloaded it?
>>
>> You said that the Received in the header is not the same as in TB's
>> Received column. So what Received dates is TB using? Thanks.
>
> Here in both my IMAP and news accounts, "Received" always seems to
> be the same as "Date". I have an email which the sender did not
> upload until 30 minutes after the "Date" header, and "Received" is
> still the same as the time in the "Date" header.
Incorrect design by the programmers?
> --
> Kind regards
> Ralph
Ralph Fox
news://news.mozilla.org/-96dnT7Bbtv1VuXT...@mozilla.org
>> Here in both my IMAP and news accounts, "Received" always seems to
>> be the same as "Date". I have an email which the sender did not
>> upload until 30 minutes after the "Date" header, and "Received" is
>> still the same as the time in the "Date" header.
>
> Incorrect design by the programmers?
See bug #402594
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402594>
news:
News servers do not provide a "date received". For newsgroups,
the "order received" is determined from the server's article
numbering. The news server assigns sequential 'article numbers'
to the messages in a newsgroup. (Cross-posted messages get a
separate article number for each newsgroup.)
--
Kind regards
Ralph
Dudley Brooks
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:20:39 -0700, in message
> news://news.mozilla.org/-96dnT7Bbtv1VuXT...@mozilla.org
> Dudley Brooks wrote:
>
>>> Here in both my IMAP and news accounts, "Received" always seems
>>> to be the same as "Date". I have an email which the sender did
>>> not upload until 30 minutes after the "Date" header, and
>>> "Received" is still the same as the time in the "Date" header.
>>
>> Incorrect design by the programmers?
>
> IMAP: See bug #402594
> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402594>
> news: News servers do not provide a "date received". For
> newsgroups, the "order received" is determined from the server's
> article numbering. The news server assigns sequential 'article
> numbers' to the messages in a newsgroup. (Cross-posted messages get
> a separate article number for each newsgroup.)
haven't yet had any interest in the dates in news.
> -- Kind regards Ralph
Ron
Dudley Brooks
months ago I checked out every e-mail program I could find, and didn't
find any that was absolutely better than TB. Each one seemed better in
some ways, worse in others; they all had their limitations, problems,
and irritations. But I did find one (can't remember now which one it
was) which had a great motto: "All e-mail programs suck; ours just
sucks less." (The "problem" with it, BTW, was that it was source-only,
and I didn't feel like going to the trouble of learning about compiling,
etc.)