*** Answering a msg posted in area ECHOMAIL002 (FMail Bad Echomail Board).

Hello Jason,

On Thursday January 01 1970 00:00, you wrote to All:

AREA:FIDOTEST
@FMAIL BAD: Message too old (2021-11-03 21:55:31)
@FMAIL SRC: 2:221/6
@FMAIL DEST: 2:280/5555
@PID: ProBoard 2.22c J
@TID: FastEcho 1.46 43281
@DATE: 01 Jan 70 00:00:00

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Test from ProBoard testbed...

---
* Origin: SiliconUnderground - Rochester, NY - siliconu.com
(1:267/311)

@PATH: 267/311 266/512 261/38 5020/1042 221/6

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: ZC1 certified techno-dick (2:280/5555)

Hi Michiel,

On 2021-11-03 21:58:10, you wrote to Jason Bock:

@FMAIL BAD: Message too old (2021-11-03 21:55:31)
@FMAIL SRC: 2:221/6
@FMAIL DEST: 2:280/5555
@PID: ProBoard 2.22c J
@TID: FastEcho 1.46 43281
@DATE: 01 Jan 70 00:00:00

MvdV> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On some of his test messages the date in my JAM message base was set to: "2070-01-01 00:00:00". So they didn't end up in my BAD area...

If I look in the pkt files I see the same date as you are showing above...?

How is your FMail configured regarding this? Mine: "Old message (days) 62"

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

Hello Wilfred,

On Wednesday November 03 2021 22:22, you wrote to me:

@DATE: 01 Jan 70 00:00:00

MvdV>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On some of his test messages the date in my JAM message base was set
to: "2070-01-01 00:00:00". So they didn't end up in my BAD area...

Odd. I did not see dates im 2070.

If I look in the pkt files I see the same date as you are showing above...?

How is your FMail configured regarding this? Mine: "Old message
(days) 62"

Set to 30 days here.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: ZC1 certified techno-dick (2:280/5555)

Hello Jason,

lol! I bought the rights to ProBoard and the source code is swiss
cheese. The date code is a mess. We are currenly fixing a ton of
code. again lol and nice catch.

Well that is rather awesome. Does that mean there will be updates to ProBoard for those running ProBoard?

Ttyl :-),
Al

... Backup? I've never had troub**&{[} 3$$ERROR
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

03 Nov 2021 23:48, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to you:

@DATE: 01 Jan 70 00:00:00

MvdV>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On some of his test messages the date in my JAM message base was
set
to: "2070-01-01 00:00:00". So they didn't end up in my BAD
area...

Odd. I did not see dates im 2070.

Same here, they ended up in my BAD echo.

Different behaviour in Windows and Linux?

How is your FMail configured regarding this? Mine: "Old message
(days) 62"

Set to 30 days here.

93 days here currently.

Carlos

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Costa Blanca, Spain (2:341/234)

Hi, Jason!

01 ﭢ 70 00:00, Jason Bock -> All:

@PID: ProBoard 2.22c J
@TID: FastEcho 1.46 43281
Test from ProBoard testbed...

No @MSGID, no date. Bad mail.

---
* Origin: SiliconUnderground - Rochester, NY - siliconu.com (1:267/311) SEEN-BY: 15/0 19/36 50/109 106/201 116/18 120/302 331 124/5009 129/12 102 125
SEEN-BY: 129/160 165 153/757 7715 218/700 221/1 6 360 222/2 230/150 152 SEEN-BY: 240/1120 250/1 261/1 38 100 220 1466 266/32 75 420 512 618 267/152
SEEN-BY: 267/154 155 311 275/100 280/464 5555 282/1056 1060 291/100 111 301/1
SEEN-BY: 320/119 219 335/364 340/400 341/66 396/45 460/58 256 1124 5858 463/68
SEEN-BY: 467/888 640/1321 712/848 801/161 189 3634/12 4500/1 4600/140 5000/111
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5019/40 5020/846 1042 2047 2140 4441 5054/30 SEEN-BY: 5058/104 5064/56 5080/102 5083/444
@PATH: 267/311 266/512 261/38 5020/1042 221/6 460/58

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- �������� - �� �����⢮ ����� ���죨, �� ������ �������� 㤮�����⢨�.
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)

Hi Michiel,

On 2021-11-03 23:48:58, you wrote to me:

MvdV> On Wednesday November 03 2021 22:22, you wrote to me:

@DATE: 01 Jan 70 00:00:00

MvdV>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On some of his test messages the date in my JAM message base was set
to: "2070-01-01 00:00:00". So they didn't end up in my BAD area...

MvdV> Odd. I did not see dates im 2070.

Maybe it's a difference between the linux 64 bit version and the windows 32 version you are using? But I will have to "study" the source code for this...

If I look in the pkt files I see the same date as you are showing
above...?

How is your FMail configured regarding this? Mine: "Old message
(days) 62"

MvdV> Set to 30 days here.

I don't think that can explain the difference in behaviour we see...

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

Hi Jason,

On 2070-01-01 00:00:00, you wrote to me:

@PID: ProBoard 2.22c J
@TID: FastEcho 1.46 43281
lol! I bought the rights to ProBoard and the source code is swiss cheese. The date code is a mess. We are currenly fixing a ton of code. again lol and nice catch.

I have no clue which message you are replying to! There are no quotes, and there is no REPLY kludge. :-(

---
* Origin: SiliconUnderground - Rochester, NY - siliconu.com (1:267/311) SEEN-BY: 15/0 19/36 102/127 103/705 106/201 116/18 120/302 331 124/5009 SEEN-BY: 124/5016 129/12 102 125 160 165 134/100 153/105 135 757 7715 SEEN-BY: 154/10 203/0 218/700 221/0 6 222/2 230/150 152 240/1120 5832 SEEN-BY: 250/1 261/1 38 100 220 1466 266/32 75 420 512 618 267/67 152 SEEN-BY: 267/154 155 311 275/100 280/464 5003 5555 282/1056 1060 291/100 SEEN-BY: 291/111 292/854 8125 301/1 310/31 320/119 219 340/400 341/66 SEEN-BY: 341/234 396/45 423/120 460/58 640/1321 712/848 770/1 801/161 SEEN-BY: 801/189 2452/250 3634/12 5020/1042
@PATH: 267/311 266/512 261/38 153/757 280/464

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

Hi Jason,

On 2021-11-03 22:00:53, you wrote to me:

@PID: ProBoard 2.22c J
@TID: FastEcho 1.46 43281
lol! I bought the rights to ProBoard and the source code is swiss cheese. The date code is a mess. We are currenly fixing a ton of code. again lol and nice catch.

This is the second time I receive this message (besides the detected dupes). Which doesn't mean you sent it twice. It could be some system along the way "fixed" the broken date, and so misled dupe checkers... :-(

---
* Origin: SiliconUnderground - Rochester, NY - siliconu.com (1:267/311) SEEN-BY: 15/0 19/25 36 103/705 106/201 633 987 116/18 120/302 331 124/5009 SEEN-BY: 124/5014 5016 129/12 102 125 160 165 130/230 803 153/757 7715 SEEN-BY: 154/10 203/0 218/700 221/0 222/2 230/150 152 240/1120 5832 SEEN-BY: 250/1 261/1 38 100 220 1466 266/32 75 420 512 618 267/152 154 SEEN-BY: 267/155 311 275/100 280/464 5003 5555 282/1056 1060 291/100 SEEN-BY: 291/111 292/854 8125 301/1 310/31 320/119 219 340/400 341/66 SEEN-BY: 341/234 387/21 25 26 396/45 423/120 460/58 640/1321 712/848 SEEN-BY: 770/1 801/161 189 2452/250 3634/12 5020/1042
@PATH: 267/311 266/512 261/38 396/45 280/464

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

Hello Wilfred,

On Thursday November 04 2021 10:50, you wrote to me:

@DATE: 01 Jan 70 00:00:00

MvdV>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On some of his test messages the date in my JAM message base was
set
to: "2070-01-01 00:00:00". So they didn't end up in my BAD
area...

MvdV>> Odd. I did not see dates im 2070.

Coming to think of it, Fidonet did not exist in 1970, so 1970 on a idonet message is defintely wrong. It does make sense to interprate two digit years < 84 as 20xx. But then dates in the future do not make sense either for Fidonet messages. Perhaps Fmail should treat messages with dates in the future as BAD too. With a bit of leeway for time zone differences and klock abreations. Let's say 48 hours in the future.

Then again 1 jan 1970 00:00:00 is the Unix date set to zero, so that is an error different from "too old" or "in the future".

Maybe it's a difference between the linux 64 bit version and the
windows 32 version you are using? But I will have to "study" the
source code for this...

I can't rule it out...

How is your FMail configured regarding this? Mine: "Old message
(days) 62"

MvdV>> Set to 30 days here.

I don't think that can explain the difference in behaviour we see...

I agree, that is unlikely.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: ZC1 certified techno-dick (2:280/5555)