|
FastMail Forum All posts relating to FastMail.FM should go here: suggestions, comments, requests for help, complaints, technical issues etc. |
|
Thread Tools |
5 Aug 2004, 12:55 PM | #1 |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 451
|
What is "RECEIVED"? -- really
I'm using the FM web mail interface. On the MAILBOX screen, there is a column labeled "RECEIVED \ /". Often, I notice that the "newest" message is dated sometime in the future. For example, today (4 AUG), the newest message in my INBOX was "received" on "8 AUG 4:43".
Messages that have these "projected" dates are always spam, so I expect this is being done purposely to keep the spam at the top of the sorted list for a few days. So, what is the RECEIVED column REALLY displaying? It's obviously NOT the time the message was really RECEIVED at the FastMail servers. Is this the time the message was SENT by the SENDER, the time stamp being provided by the sender's computer clock (which could easily be set to a future date)? |
5 Aug 2004, 04:32 PM | #2 | ||
Master of the @
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,395
Representative of:
Fastmail.FM |
Re: What is "RECEIVED"? -- really
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
5 Aug 2004, 05:34 PM | #3 |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 2,550
|
I know that, at some point in the future, there are plans to make this actually show the time the message was received. In the mean time, though, the column heading is inaccurate. Until this is changed, have you guys considered simply changing the column name to "Date", so it won't be claiming to be something it isn't?
|
6 Aug 2004, 04:06 AM | #4 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 92
|
ah....okay....that explains:
http://sunstone.myfastmail.com/Futuremail.GIF |
6 Aug 2004, 04:47 AM | #5 |
Intergalactic Postmaster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,102
Representative of:
Fastmail.FM |
Changing it to just "Date" is a good idea.
If you remember, the whole Received vs Sent thing is mostly to deal with email pulled via POP. If we showed the real received date, it would show the date the email was downloaded from the POP server... Now I know you'll say, "Why not for POP'ed emails, set the received date to the sent date (eg Date: header in the email)?" A nice idea, but not easy to implement because the imap received date is set internally during the LMTP delivery stage and cannot currently be overridden (though I'm sure with a bit of work, you could create a patch to do this...) Rob |
6 Aug 2004, 05:00 AM | #6 |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 451
|
Thanks for the explanations, guys. And, Kurianja, I didn't mean to imply that FM was doing anything to keep the spams at the top of the list . . .
I should have said: "I expect the spammers are doing this purposely . . ." Jerry |
6 Aug 2004, 05:09 AM | #7 |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 344
|
At Runbox, we have the opposite problem. We show the date the message was received (and we call it "date") in the list. For regular mail, this is good enough, but it's a real pain with mail the users retrieve by POP from other accounts. Particularly if they fetch all mail from their old account this way. We also feed POP retrieved mail through the same system that regular mail goes through, so it's hard to distinguish between the two.
The problem with using the date from the Date: header is pretty much what you've discovered here. It is often completely wrong. Spam is probably the most common source of mails with futuristic dates, but I regularly get mail from friends with the date set a couple of years in the future, or past, or where the time could have been correct if they had been using the correct timezone. I think the best thing is to keep both dates. Sort by received date at default, and sort by the date header when the user clicks on the date column. And let it be overridable in preferences. |
6 Aug 2004, 05:10 AM | #8 | |
Master of the @
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: California
Posts: 1,148
|
Quote:
|
|
6 Aug 2004, 05:19 AM | #9 |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 2,550
|
I agree with trond that having the option is nice. I used to use The Bat as my client, and it actually had both Sent and Received columns available. It isn't necessary, IMO, to actually display both columns, as The Bat does, but being about to choose *which* date to display and sort on, perhaps on a per-folder basis, makes sense.
|
6 Aug 2004, 05:24 AM | #10 |
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 8,687
|
Personally I really like it when it shows the date the sender sent it. If it shows Aug 3 and just arrives on Aug 5, I know it got lost somewhere out there and can reply letting the sender know I just got it and wasn't ignoring them. (hotmail mail does get hung up out there a lot)
Sherry |
6 Aug 2004, 05:34 AM | #11 | |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 344
|
Quote:
dial-up connection to the internet, the date will (normally) be set when the user "sends" the message to his outbox. But it can sit there for days until the next time the user actually connects to the internet. The only way to know if there actually was a delay, and where it occured, is to take a look at the received headers in the mail. They're added by the mailservers that the messages passes through. They're normally correct (but many spammers will attempt to fake them as well), but there's no standard format of these headers, so it's best to leave the interpretation of them to humans |
|
6 Aug 2004, 06:14 AM | #12 |
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 8,687
|
Thanks for the response. I think, for me, most I know that are on dial-up get logged in, read/reply and send. They then disconnect when they are through. Guess that's a good reason to have it be a choice.
Sherry |
6 Aug 2004, 06:31 AM | #13 | |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 2,978
|
Quote:
P.S. Changing the FM "Date" column label is a good idea I agree Last edited by bitequator : 6 Aug 2004 at 04:39 PM. |
|
6 Aug 2004, 09:11 AM | #14 | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 92
|
Quote:
Uh, this is scary... |
|
6 Aug 2004, 09:28 AM | #15 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 8,687
|
Quote:
Sherry |
|