Hi, > I bet if you look at the Date headers of the problem emails, you'll find > that they're not RFC compliant. > > The cyrus date parser is very strict, and if the header isn't RFC > compliant, you'll get a bad value, and bad sorting. > > 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, I've got several wonky dates: Date: Wed, 31 Dec 3609 10:05:57 +0800 Date: , 28 Dec 2008 13:23:13 +0100 Date: , 28 Dec 2008 14:36:35 +0800 I'm not sure if 3609 is a valid year but, despite the fact it's a blatant lie, it doesn't seem to be syntactically invalid. It shows up in the listing as "06.01.2010 01:00" but that date (6/1) doesn't appear in any of the headers. I'd expect this message to sort first in descending order. The ones without days of week are just plain wrong. I wouldn't expect them to sort before (in descending order) my other, valid, messages in 2009. I assume that INTERNALDATE will end up being the time that cyrus actually receives a message. In that case I wouldn't expect the offending messages (28/12/2008) to continually sort before all other messages in the mailbox. Regards, @ndy -- andyjpb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.ashurst.eu.org/ http://www.gonumber.com/andyjpb 0x7EBA75FF ---- 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
