On t 2023 12:04:19 GMT Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>
> I don't use a date/time in the attribution line of my posts, because I
>think it's not relevant most of the time and people can easily look it
>up if they think it's relevant.
>
> If I think it is relevant, for example when responding to a rather old
>post, I add the date manually.
>
> If people use date/time in their attribution line, I think they should
>try to use the timezone of the poster they are referring to.
>
> In your case, the date/time is correct, but because we're in the same
>timezone, I can't check if you're referring to the parent poster's
>timezone ('correct') or your timezone ('wrong').

Let us not forget that a time, whether it be in the post's timestamp or an
attribution, does not indicate what timezone the _poster_ is in.

An attribution time is only wrong if it refers to a different time, after
adjusting for timezone, to the timestamp of the referred-to post.

(The local time here is 19:30)
--
(Remove numerics from email address)

On 2023-10-25 14:04, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-10-23 20:09, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Date: 11 Oct 2023 12:43:10 GMT
>>>
>>> i.e. 'incorrect' format.
>>
>> I just looked in the "advanced config" editor of Thunderbird, to see
>> what I can find.
>>
>> mailnews.display.date_senders_timezone
>>
>> default is false, I just set it to true. Now when I set the focus on
>> your email, it says at the right of the header panel 18:09 +0000, and
>> for Stan it says 09:54 -0700
>>
>> But in the list of emails panels it says 20:09 and 18:54, which are
>> probably my local time.
>>
>> I don't see where to change the format of the first line, the "On date,
>> name wrote"
>
> I don't use a date/time in the attribution line of my posts, because I
> think it's not relevant most of the time and people can easily look it
> up if they think it's relevant.
>
> If I think it is relevant, for example when responding to a rather old
> post, I add the date manually.
>
> If people use date/time in their attribution line, I think they should
> try to use the timezone of the poster they are referring to.

I am using the defaults.

Stan Brown posted information about how to change it, I still need to
have a look at it. I want to add timezone to the attribution line,
either text or numeric.

>
> In your case, the date/time is correct, but because we're in the same
> timezone, I can't check if you're referring to the parent poster's
> timezone ('correct') or your timezone ('wrong').

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-10-25 16:17, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-10-24 14:28, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> Carlos E. R., 2023-10-23 22:06:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-10-23 20:02, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>>>> Carlos E. R., 2023-10-22 01:17:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-10-21 23:28, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/21/23 12:23 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am 21.10.23 um 18:27 schrieb The Real Bev:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No idea how you could change it permanently. Is it possible btw?
>>>>>>>> Never tried on my Pixel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I usually change the filenames as soon as I dump the photos to the
>>>>>>> computer, but I just happened to notice the difference the other day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would love to have my cameras in Zulu aka UTC time, and I can't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? The clock of a digital camera can just be set to UTC.
>>>>
>>>> Yes and no... I can not tell the configuration that the time zone is UTC
>>>> (and that there is no summer time). I can set the actual time digits to
>>>> UTC, but it doesn't know that it is UTC, and when importing to the
>>>> computer it is a mess.
>>>
>>> So the camera does not have a timezone at all and you can not tell the
>>> computer, that the time information should be treated as UTC?
>>
>> The camera(s) has timezones, just not UTC.
>>
>> My first camera (samsung) has "cities", so it also has summer time.
>>
>> I could use London, GMT+0, winter time; but then the computer doesn't
>> know the media is UTC, always assumes local time and gets the time
>> wrong. I might mount the media manually and find an option to supersede
>> the time, I have not looked in detail.
>>
>> My second camera (Nikon) has no battery now.
>>
>> My third camera (Lumix) does the same as the first, and is a decade newer.
>
> Strange! All our cameras - probably ten or so over time - could always
> be manually set to the desired time and if they had a DST setting, that
> could be turned off.
>
> What I actually *do*, is set them to the local time of the place where
> we take the photos, because that's what gets recorded in the EXIF part
> of the JPEG file.
>
>> I just had a quick look at man mount.ntfs-3g, and I don't see a timezone
>> setting.
>
> Why would a timezone matter? That would affect the timestamps *of* the
> files (atime, mtime, ctime), not the times *in* (the EXIF part of) the
> file.

Obviously, the Exif data should contain a time stamp and the time zone
of that time stamp. If you move the camera between zones, the exif data
can be off.

>
> IIRC, Unix timestamps of files are seconds from Epoch (whatever date
> in 1970) and in UTC. The file utitities translate that to local time
> when doing 'ls -l' like things, I.e. the *display* is in local time,
> but the *storage* is in UTC.

Yes, but the memory cards are always FAT or exFAT. They use always local
time, and have no information of timezone. And for the classification of
photos, the file timestamp is ignored, it is the exif data which is the
boss.

>
>>> [...]
>>>> Also, if the camera can get the time from GPS directly or indirectly, it
>>>> messes my adjustments.
>>>
>>> Well - if the camera would use GPS for time synchronization, than it
>>> would have to use UTC and adjust the time according to a local timezone
>>> you have to set.
>>
>> It doesn't. It reads local time from the connected phone over wifi/BT
>
> FTR, non of my cameras had/have GPS, so GPS could/can not clobber the
> time I had/have manually set.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 18:30:24 -0000 (UTC), Dave Royal wrote:
> (The local time here is 19:30)

Something is wrong somewhere. The date in your article header was

> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 18:30:24 -0000 (UTC)

Which is what my newsreader picked up for the attribution in my
followup.

> Let us not forget that a time, whether it be in the post's timestamp or an
> attribution, does not indicate what timezone the _poster_ is in.

I don't understand. What is the time in the header of a Usenet
article supposed to indicate, then?

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 25 Oct 2023 13:41:20 -0700 Stan Brown wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 18:30:24 -0000 (UTC), Dave Royal wrote:
>> (The local time here is 19:30)
>
>Something is wrong somewhere. The date in your article header was
>
>> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 18:30:24 -0000 (UTC)
>
>Which is what my newsreader picked up for the attribution in my
>followup.
>
>> Let us not forget that a time, whether it be in the post's timestamp or an
>> attribution, does not indicate what timezone the _poster_ is in.
>
>I don't understand. What is the time in the header of a Usenet
>article supposed to indicate, then?
>

The time that E-S accepted my post.

I am in the UK. The local time is now 22:22 BST. BST is UTC+0100.

On 14th September 05:52:04 (UTC) I posted to the thread 'Just a few
trivial network questions' in this NG - from Trieste, where I think the
local time was UTC+2.
--
(Remove numerics from email address)

On 2023-10-25 23:21, Dave Royal wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2023 13:41:20 -0700 Stan Brown wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 18:30:24 -0000 (UTC), Dave Royal wrote:
>>> (The local time here is 19:30)
>>
>> Something is wrong somewhere. The date in your article header was
>>
>>> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 18:30:24 -0000 (UTC)
>>
>> Which is what my newsreader picked up for the attribution in my
>> followup.
>>
>>> Let us not forget that a time, whether it be in the post's timestamp or an
>>> attribution, does not indicate what timezone the _poster_ is in.
>>
>> I don't understand. What is the time in the header of a Usenet
>> article supposed to indicate, then?
>>
>
> The time that E-S accepted my post.
>
> I am in the UK. The local time is now 22:22 BST. BST is UTC+0100.
>
> On 14th September 05:52:04 (UTC) I posted to the thread 'Just a few
> trivial network questions' in this NG - from Trieste, where I think the
> local time was UTC+2.

No, AFAIK the date header is written by your software (at the time of
sending) and should be in your locale.

IF it is missing, then the nntp server will add one.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 23/10/2023 19:11, Brian Gregory wrote:
> UT1 is the same but based on atomic time but specified by an offset from
> UTC. I think it's always within 0.1 second of UTC but I'm not sure.

Correction:
UT1 is the same but based on atomic time but specified by an offset from
UTC. I think it's always within 0.1 second of *GMT* but I'm not sure.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On 25 Oct 2023 23:41:25 +0200 Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
>
>No, AFAIK the date header is written by your software (at the time of
>sending) and should be in your locale.
>
>IF it is missing, then the nntp server will add one.
>
I wrote the software ;)
I don't provide the time header. It was simpler.

Why 'should' it be the time my locale?

From RFC 5322:
Though "-0000" also indicates Universal Time, it is used to indicate that
the time was generated on a system that may be in a local time zone other
than Universal Time and that the date-time contains no information about
the local time zone.

So it may tell you something about the TZ of the system generating it, but
that may not be in the same TZ as the user's NNTP client.

FWIW I display all times in UTC. But as you see I quote a post's time as
it arrived which I think is helpful. Perhaps I should add [21:41 UT]?

--
(Remove numerics from email address)

On 2023-10-26 08:48, Dave Royal wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2023 23:41:25 +0200 Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>>
>> No, AFAIK the date header is written by your software (at the time of
>> sending) and should be in your locale.
>>
>> IF it is missing, then the nntp server will add one.
>>
> I wrote the software ;)
> I don't provide the time header. It was simpler.
>
> Why 'should' it be the time my locale?

It lets the other side guess if you may be sleeping when replying, and
thus not reply yet ;-)

It also allows us to estimate what side of the pond you are. Or what pond!

>
> From RFC 5322:
> Though "-0000" also indicates Universal Time, it is used to indicate that
> the time was generated on a system that may be in a local time zone other
> than Universal Time and that the date-time contains no information about
> the local time zone.
>
> So it may tell you something about the TZ of the system generating it, but
> that may not be in the same TZ as the user's NNTP client.
>
> FWIW I display all times in UTC. But as you see I quote a post's time as
> it arrived which I think is helpful. Perhaps I should add [21:41 UT]?
>
>

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 10/25/23 4:48 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/23/23 8:44 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> [...]
>> > [Rewind/repeat:]
>> >
>> >> I change this with jhead (20231018-114736.jpg), but sometimes I
>> >> want to send the exact untouched-in-any-way photo.
>> >
>> > I don't consider a name change of the *file* to be a non-untouched
>> > *photo*. If you - like me - consider a name in local time to be better,
>> > more accurate, <whatever>, then I don't see fixing that as "touching"
>> > the photo.
>>
>> That probably counts as access time, which is a 'touch'. I should look.
>> I know linux keeps track of that... Not going to worry about this any
>> more -- explanation in different post.
>
> Yes, I know you are not going to worry about this any more, so this is
> just a technical point:
>
> Linux/Unix indeed keeps track of the access time (atime), but you can
> change that, so if you (or your software) keep track of it, you can
> change it back to what it was. What you can't change - and which gets
> changed if you change any of the other times - is the ctime (used to be
> called the change-of-inode time).
>
> But you talked about "send"ing these files, so the access time gets
> changed anyway and the ctime of the destination file will be different
> then that of the source anyway.
>
> EOP (End Of Pedantics)! :-)

'Pedantry' would be more appropriate :-)

--
Cheers, Bev
Segal's Law: A man with one watch knows the time.
A man with two is never sure.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/25/23 4:48 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
[...]

> > EOP (End Of Pedantics)! :-)
>
> 'Pedantry' would be more appropriate :-)

You're - of course - correct.

I wanted something like EOD (Discussion) and started with Pedantic,
but wanted a 'verbish'-noun (like discussing -> discussion), but there
Google Translate 'failed' me and came up with Pedantics. This poor
Dutchie can't win them all! :-)

On 10/27/23 5:10 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/25/23 4:48 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> [...]
>
>> > EOP (End Of Pedantics)! :-)
>>
>> 'Pedantry' would be more appropriate :-)
>
> You're - of course - correct.
>
> I wanted something like EOD (Discussion) and started with Pedantic,
> but wanted a 'verbish'-noun (like discussing -> discussion), but there
> Google Translate 'failed' me and came up with Pedantics. This poor
> Dutchie can't win them all! :-)

When I was in school, a very smart teacher assigned what seemed to be
novel homework: He had a section in the library for "his" books, each
of which had a list of pages to be read -- maybe 3 max. I think perhaps
10 books a week. Not a heavy load. One of them was S.I. Hayakawa on
semantics. I had never thought about that before. It was a revelation.

I bet you've already read it!

--
Cheers, Bev
Non illegitimi carborundum.

Am 28.10.23 um 06:33 schrieb The Real Bev:
> --
> Cheers, Bev
> Non illegitimi carborundum.

Ave The Real Bev! Morituri te salutant!

*SCNR* ;-)

On 10/27/23 11:16 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 28.10.23 um 06:33 schrieb The Real Bev:
>> --
>> Cheers, Bev
>> Non illegitimi carborundum.
>
> Ave The Real Bev! Morituri te salutant!
>
> *SCNR* ;-)

Is there an acronym for No Apology Necessary?

...Nope.

--
Cheers, Bev
Children, your performance was miserable. Your parents will
all receive phone calls instructing them to love you less.