Robert Mueller (web) wrote: > I bet if you look at the Date headers of the problem emails, you'll find > that they're not RFC compliant. These are the date headers from the offending emails. Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 01:48:19 -0700 Date: Sun 17 Feb 2008 20:05:01 -0500 Date: Sun 27 Jan 2008 20:15:18 -0500 Date: Sun 30 Dec 2007 20:04:16 -0500 Date: Thu 6 Dec 2007 20:17:13 -0500 Date: Thu 1 Nov 2007 20:02:33 -0400 Date: Mon 22 Oct 2007 20:08:57 -0400 Date: Sat 6 Oct 2007 20:02:46 -0400 I see absolutely nothing wrong with the first one. The rest are missing a comma after the day of week. (based on the grammar provided in RFC2822) > The cyrus date parser is very strict, and if the header isn't RFC > compliant, you'll get a bad value, and bad sorting. I could believe that all but the first one fail to parse. > Looking at the RFC > > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc5256.html > > If the sent date cannot be determined (a Date: header is missing or > cannot be parsed), the INTERNALDATE for that message is used as the > sent date. > > I'm not cyrus is actually doing this though, If INTERNALDATE is derived from the timestamp on the file, then the INTERNALDATE is certainly not what it is sorting on here. -- Gillette - the best a man can forget ---- Cyrus Home Page: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/ Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/twiki List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
