Re: alternative DateTime (ref: fts-0001.016)
  By: Maurice Kinal to Andrew Leary on Fri Dec 18 2020 05:59 pm

 > Hey Andrew!
 >
 >  AL> While I can see the merits of your proposal, it currently is not
 >  AL> implemented in any FidoNet compatible software.
 >
 > Understood.  That is why if it already hasn't rendered the software as
 > useless it soon enough will.  The two digit year has a cycle of expiration
 > built right in.  It has been witnessed before in this very echoarea although
 > I am sure few people understood what they were witnessing given the lack of
 > a proper fix.  I recall pkzip causing serious problems way back when over
 > the two digit year issue as well as the y2k bug.

Sure, but FidoNet is a legacy protocol that must (what I've observed) be
enhanced only in backwards-compatible means. So if you want to add, say, the
full year of authorship to to messages in a backwards compatible way, a new
control paragraph (kludge line) would be the way to go.

And if you're going to introduce another date/time format, best to use existing
standards (e.g. RFC822 or ISO-8601) rather than introducing yet another format.

 >  AL> Your best shot is to convince the maintainers of existing
 >  AL> packages which are still being developed, such as HPT, D'Bridge,
 >  AL> MBSEBBS, Synchronet, and Mystic of the merits of your proposal,
 >  AL> and get it implemented.
 >
 > Sounds like a plan.  If not this echoarea then where?  I would have thought
 > this is the perfect echoarea for proposing changes to obviously flawed FTN
 > standards rather then to chase down individuals who more than likely already
 > know about this issue.

This seems to me to be the right place to discuss.
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux