Re: TAI and qmail

On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 12:15:54PM -0400, Paul Jarc wrote:
> Jan Pisacka <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On the other hand, on machine_2 (TAI), the timestamp in the "Received:
> > header is famous 22 seconds ahead of all the other timestamps.
> 
> It seems that qmail-queue contains its own implementation of gmtime()
> (datetime_tai()) which makes no use of $TZ or /etc/localtime - it
> always assumes the system clock does not count leap seconds.

Truly amazing, I never noticed before. There is a 22 second
difference. I looked at datetime.c and noticed that "march 1, 2000
[sic]" is given as "day 0" (does that mean the beginning of the qmail
era?): I assume that means 0h 1 March 2000, but I can't see a reason for
this date more than another, or a reason why qmail timestamps ignore how
the system treats leapseconds.


-- 
__________________
[email protected]
------------------

"Yeah, I'm drunk all right, and you're crazy. Tomorrow I'll
be sober, but you'll still be crazy for the rest of your life."
-W.C. Fields