Re: OT: Re: Less is more

At 18:14 04/05/2004, Brett Watson wrote:
> > Why not? Sounds eminently sensible to me. Realistically, would anyone care
> > about leap seconds when sending email?
>
>If you're going to insist on "no leap second dates", you may as well do a
>conversion from UTC to UT1 at the outset (converting any instance of 60
>seconds back down to 59), since this gives you 0.9 second accuracy anyhow.
>Why the on-going enthusiasm for half-baked UTC implementations, folks? Do it
>right or do something else, I say.

True - OK, UT1 it is then..

>If nobody cares for leap seconds, then perhaps nobody cares for seconds at 
>all
>in this instance. That being so, we can declare the time structure without
>seconds, suggesting that it should be accurate to plus or minus a minute.
>This renders the UTC versus UT1 debate irrelevant: they both meet these
>criteria.

Interesting idea. Seconds are really only useful if all MUAs/MTAs are 
synchronised. Given that, in real life, they won't, a resolution of minutes 
might well be adequate.


Paul				VPOP3 - Internet Email Server/Gateway
[email protected]			http://www.pscs.co.uk/