This is nothing too dramatic, but curious nonetheless.
Just received an email (a response from an abuse desk about a confirmed spammer kill - not relevant this, but it makes me happy and I want to share it), and it appears to be dated 12 hours in the future.
I thought it odd that the email software used by the abuse desk of a well run ISP could be misconfigured, so I took a look at the MIME source of the message (slightly munged below to protect the innocent).
Received: from example.com ([192.168.1.1])
by my.domino.host (Lotus Domino Release 6.0.1CF1)
with SMTP id 2003042415183389-5834 ;
Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:18:33 +0100
Received: from example by example.com with scanned-ok (Exim 3.13 #1)
id 198hYY-000AWb-00
for [me]; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:18:34 +0100
Received: from someplaceelse by example.com with local (Exim 3.13 #1)
id 198hYU-000AVw-00
for [me]; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:18:30 +0100
From: “ISP Abuse Team” abuse@isp.example
To: Christopher W Linfoot <[me]>
Subject: Re: spam
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:18:30 BST
Note that the time stamps on all received headers are within a few seconds of 15:18:30 +0100 (eighteen minutes past three in the afternoon, UK daylight saving time). This was the correct time at the time the message was delivered.
The “Date” header is also 15:18:30, but says “BST” where it should say “+0100”. I believe Notes uses the date header to display the message received date, when it is available.
The question (of no great significance to me right now but I confess, I am intrigued) is, why does the Notes client display this date as 03:18 tomorrow? It has somehow interpreted “BST” as UTC +1300, not UTC +0100.
Just thought it a bit arbitrary that Notes would take this as +1300 as opposed to any other value, though the true misbehaviour is obviously in the sender’s mail client as I don’t think “BST” is a valid for an RFC2822 time zone (http://rfc.net/rfc2822.html#s3.3.)