On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:01:34PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > > date format should look like this : > > > > Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 16:36:30 +0200 > > > > with 9 before Apr, which is not the case of the date you gave. > > > > libetpan currently does not support such strange date format. > > Do I understand correctly that this bug is actually not a bug but a request > to support some invalid date format, and Dinh thinks that it is not a good > idea to support this invalid format? > > If so, I will shange this bug's severity to "wishlist" and add "wontfix" > tag - because I don't think that libetpan is Debian should support format > that upstream libetpan does not support. > (or I may just close the bug if submitter agrees).
Close or tag wishlist,wontfix - As you like. I just say mutt parses and
displays this correctly. The internet is built on the "be strict in what
you send, be liberal in what you receive.". The date format is not
RFC2822 but nevertheless in a format which is detect and parseable.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-171-2280134
Heisenberg may have been here.
pgppf7IljBiEL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
