Subj : Test
To   : Gleb Hlebov
From : Nicholas Boel
Date : Fri Mar 29 2024 18:19:16

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 16:41:38 +0400, you wrote:

 NB>> This is kinda neat, I have to admit.
 NB>> --- tin/2.6.3-20231224 ("Banff") (Linux/6.8.1-arch1-1 (x86_64))

 GH> It is, but someone needs an upgrade. :-)

 GH> ========
 GH> ~$ tin -V
 GH> Version: tin 2.6.4 release 20240224 ("Banff") Feb 24 2024 15:17:45
 GH> ========

I just got it and compiled yesterday from tin.org, and it said it was the "latest stable branch". I searched github and couldn't find anything on there, either. I assume you are on their mailing list or something?

I did see mention of that version, and it looks like the only difference is some compilation error fixes with kefir and xcc, and a configure error with cproc. I don't use any of those so that wouldn't affect me anyways. :)

 GH> It still has the same "timestamp anomaly" though. Any idea what's wrong?
 GH> http://pics.wfido.ru/img/948di9485j394_2gejf.png

I didn't notice that, to be honest. I have only played with it for about an hour so far. I'll have to take a closer look, but from your screenshot, the 1970 timestamps are from a very old BBS software (Proboard) that probably hasn't been updated in forever, so that could very well be the cause. As for Tommi, I don't know.. unless he was posting from his (very old) BBS also.

With all that said, slrn and tin seem VERY similar.

Regards,
Nick

.... Take my advice, I don't use it anyway.
--- slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
 * Origin: _thePharcyde distribution system (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)

.