Subject:
|
Re: Posting Dates
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Mar 2002 00:39:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1826 times
|
| |
|
|
Dan Boger wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, Rob Doucette wrote:
> > I like this suggestion. If the message isn't dispositioned within 5
> > days (I like 3 better) send the entire text of the message back to the
> > sender via e-mail and remove it from the server. The message could
> > easily be reposted via newsreader if necessary by the user.
>
> nod, interesting... or send a reminder, saying "if you don't authorize
> this post in the next 2 days, it will be deleted"...
>
> > Can the NNTP posting date be changed to reflect the authorized date?
>
> it can, but should it? I think the date the message was written is the
> date that should appear on it. the authorize date shouldn't matter...
>
> does that make sense?
There's actually two problems which cause funny dated/timed messages.
The one Lugnet has had from day 1 is that the poster's clock is
incorrectly set. This usually results in messages having time stamps
which are off by several hours, but if their date is wrong also...
The other problem which is new is the poster who delays authorizing a
message.
I have started to solve the ordering problem by sorting my newsreader by
message number (i.e. order actually posted). Thus those wacko messages
show up down at the bottom where they belong as new messages.
Given the quirks of the interface, I would be in favor of one of the
following methods:
1. The server sets the posting date/time when the message is submitted
to the server. This guarantees that post times are consistent.
2. The server sets the posting date/time when the message is authorized.
This keeps post times consistent and solves the problem of the delayed
authorization.
I don't see a high degree of value in knowing what the poster's computer
thought the time was when the poster hit the "send" button. I do see a
degree of value in not hiding posts from people who don't realize they
should sort by message number not by date.
I would also note that the "posted 1 hour ago" that the web interface
shows seems to be based on server time (I have checked messages in the
past and I'm pretty sure I've seen something which says "posted 20
minutes ago" which has a very different posting time). This suggests
that the web interface really cares about the server time of
availability of the message not the client's time.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Posting Dates
|
| (...) nod, interesting... or send a reminder, saying "if you don't authorize this post in the next 2 days, it will be deleted"... (...) it can, but should it? I think the date the message was written is the date that should appear on it. the (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
83 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
