Here is an example of lines in the summary buffer (sorted by date) where the dates seemingly appear to be out of order:
30 Uday S Reddy Feb 9 242/10962 "Re: 8.2.0b1"
31 R Uday S Reddy Feb 10 16/687 "Re: 8.2.0b1"
-> 32 Alan Wehmann Feb 9 1734/125218 "more on 8.2.0b and Thunderbird INBOX folder"
From my *scratch* buffer the corresponding information is:
"date-1 is 2012020914:25:12, date-2 is 2012020914:25:12, month is February, day is 9, hour is 20:25:12
zone is +0000, parsed date is [ 14:25:12 ]
message-id is 4036, uidl is nil, author is Uday S Reddy"
"date-1 is 2012020918:43:28, date-2 is 2012020918:43:28, month is February, day is 10, hour is 00:43:28
zone is +0000, parsed date is [ 18:43:28 ]
message-id is 4037, uidl is nil, author is Uday S Reddy"
"date-1 is 2012020919:17:51, date-2 is 2012020919:17:51, month is February, day is 9, hour is 19:17:51
zone is -0600, parsed date is [ 19:17:51 ]
message-id is 4038, uidl is nil, author is Alan Wehmann"
so, the date sorting was correctly done
The above output is obtained from evaluating
(let ((aw-buf (get-buffer "XMAIL_vm Summary"))
aw-msg aw-date-1 aw-date-2 aw-month aw-zone aw-day aw-hour aw-parse
aw-msg-id aw-uidl aw-auth)
(set-buffer aw-buf)
(setq aw-msg (vm-current-message)
aw-date-1 (vm-sortable-datestring-of aw-msg)
aw-date-2 (vm-so-sortable-datestring aw-msg)
aw-month (vm-month-of aw-msg)
aw-zone (vm-zone-of aw-msg)
aw-day (vm-monthday-of aw-msg)
aw-hour (vm-hour-of aw-msg)
aw-parse (vm-parse-date aw-date-1)
aw-msg-id (vm-message-id-number-of aw-msg)
aw-uidl (vm-pop-uidl-of aw-msg)
aw-auth (vm-full-name-of aw-msg))
(format (concat "date-1 is %s, date-2 is %s, month is %s, day is %s, "
"hour is %s\nzone is %s, parsed date is %s\nmessage-id is %s, uidl is %s"
", author is %s")
aw-date-1 aw-date-2 aw-month aw-day aw-hour aw-zone aw-parse aw-msg-id aw-uidl aw-auth))
on each message in turn
so, in principle, there is enough information available to make the summary buffer show a "local" timestamp (as Thunderbird apparenly does). I would not advocate changing the Date: header in the message itself.
Here is an example of lines in the summary buffer (sorted by date) where the dates seemingly appear to be out of order:
30 Uday S Reddy Feb 9 242/10962 "Re: 8.2.0b1"
31 R Uday S Reddy Feb 10 16/687 "Re: 8.2.0b1"
-> 32 Alan Wehmann Feb 9 1734/125218 "more on 8.2.0b and Thunderbird INBOX folder"
From my *scratch* buffer the corresponding information is:
"date-1 is 2012020914:25:12, date-2 is 2012020914:25:12, month is February, day is 9, hour is 20:25:12
zone is +0000, parsed date is [ 14:25:12 ]
message-id is 4036, uidl is nil, author is Uday S Reddy"
"date-1 is 2012020918:43:28, date-2 is 2012020918:43:28, month is February, day is 10, hour is 00:43:28
zone is +0000, parsed date is [ 18:43:28 ]
message-id is 4037, uidl is nil, author is Uday S Reddy"
"date-1 is 2012020919:17:51, date-2 is 2012020919:17:51, month is February, day is 9, hour is 19:17:51
zone is -0600, parsed date is [ 19:17:51 ]
message-id is 4038, uidl is nil, author is Alan Wehmann"
so, the date sorting was correctly done
The above output is obtained from evaluating
(let ((aw-buf (get-buffer "XMAIL_vm Summary")) message) datestring- of aw-msg) sortable- datestring aw-msg) id-number- of aw-msg)
aw-msg aw-date-1 aw-date-2 aw-month aw-zone aw-day aw-hour aw-parse
aw-msg-id aw-uidl aw-auth)
(set-buffer aw-buf)
(setq aw-msg (vm-current-
aw-date-1 (vm-sortable-
aw-date-2 (vm-so-
aw-month (vm-month-of aw-msg)
aw-zone (vm-zone-of aw-msg)
aw-day (vm-monthday-of aw-msg)
aw-hour (vm-hour-of aw-msg)
aw-parse (vm-parse-date aw-date-1)
aw-msg-id (vm-message-
aw-uidl (vm-pop-uidl-of aw-msg)
aw-auth (vm-full-name-of aw-msg))
(format (concat "date-1 is %s, date-2 is %s, month is %s, day is %s, "
"hour is %s\nzone is %s, parsed date is %s\nmessage-id is %s, uidl is %s"
", author is %s")
aw-date-1 aw-date-2 aw-month aw-day aw-hour aw-zone aw-parse aw-msg-id aw-uidl aw-auth))
on each message in turn
so, in principle, there is enough information available to make the summary buffer show a "local" timestamp (as Thunderbird apparenly does). I would not advocate changing the Date: header in the message itself.