On 20 Mar 14 22:15, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Nicholas Boel:
MV>>> - 17:09 [6064] TIME Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:09:05 +0100
MV>>> The "17:09" is my local time. Which is CET or UTC+0100
NB>> The first time (17:09) does not have a TZUTC, since that is your NB>> local system's time.
MV> Indeed, that is my local system time. Which BTW is UTC+0100. (CET)
Right, but it is already converted, which is why it doesn't say UTC+0100.
NB>> he second time (16:09:05) is offset with +0100, which NB>> makes it the exact same time as your time.
MV> No. The second time is in the same time zone as mine. UTC+0100. MV> (indicated by the 0100 after the 16:09:05. If he is in the same time MV> zone as I, his local time mist be the same as mine. So the 16:09:05 is MV> NOT his local time.
I think you're right there, but it seems to me Argus is displaying UTC time, and then giving the offset. In other words, showing his local time as +0100 from UTC (16:09:05). At least that's how I'm seeing it anyways.
NB>> Your system has already made up for the +0100 in your log. His NB>> mailer must not be offsetting the time, but is indicating that by NB>> placing the UTC+0100 in there. Add that +0100 to 16:09:05 and you NB>> get the exact same time as your system's log.
MV> No, ther confusion arises because Argus does not follow the convention MV> of using local time, it displays UTC instead.
What's wrong with displaying UTC and giving the correct offset, besides the fact that it isn't matching your logs? It clearly must be a bug, then. :)
NB>> Doesn't seem like an error at all to me. But then again, it could NB>> be a bug. ;-)
MV> It defintely is an anomaly.
Is Argus currently developed? Is the source available? If so, do something about it if it *bugs* you that much. :)
Regards, Nick
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910 * Origin: Dark Sorrow | darksorrow.us (1:154/701)
