REPLY: 2:280/464.47@fidonet 5dc7cbd3   
   MSGID: 1:320/219@fidonet 5dc7f4f3   
   CHRS: CP437 2   
   TZUTC: -0500   
   TID: MBSE-FIDO 1.0.7.13 (GNU/Linux-x86_64)   
   Hello Oli!   
      
   10 Nov 19 09:35, you wrote to me:   
      
    AL>> Incidentally, I discovered that the timestamp of that file on   
    AL>> disk was showing as November 25, 1961, so it should be a negative   
    AL>> value. Converting the decimal to hex yields FFFF FFFF F0C4 3650,   
    AL>> which in 2's complement notation is -255576496.  A quick Unix   
    AL>> time conversion results in Sat 25 Nov 1961 10:31:44 PM UTC.   
    AL>> Therefore, it appears that the value is a correct 64-bit Unixtime   
    AL>> for the file timestamp as it was on disk.   
      
    Ol> I didn't expect that SIOREG.ZIP is that old ;-). It makes more sense   
      
   It's not.  The file had a timestamp of 01-01-1998 on my OS/2 system; somehow    
   the timestamp got grunged when I sent it over to the Linux machine using binkd    
   1.1a-99/OS2.  I just tried sending it again, and the same timestamp corruption    
   occurred.   
      
    Ol> now. The question is which of the two mailers doesn't handle the   
    Ol> negative unix timestamp well.   
      
   Yes, and also the 64-bit vs. 32-bit question.  I'll work on further testing    
   today.   
      
   Andrew   
      
   --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707   
    * Origin: Phoenix BBS * phoenix.bnbbbs.net (1:320/219)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/19 123 16/0 90/1 103/705 120/544 123/130 131 132/174 142/926   
   SEEN-BY: 154/10 203/0 221/0 1 6 242 360 227/114 229/101 200 354 426   
   SEEN-BY: 229/1014 230/0 240/5832 249/307 317 261/38 280/464 5003 5555   
   SEEN-BY: 292/854 310/31 320/119 219 322/0 342/200 396/45 423/81 120   
   SEEN-BY: 640/1384 712/848 770/1 2452/250   
   PATH: 320/219 221/1 280/464 229/426