Sure, I'll add something to that effect when I get a moment and I'll have a look around at other commands.  So far I've noted the following commands accept dates in basically the same format:

at(1) and its aliases
cal(1), much simpler though
pax(1)
touch(1)
ca(1), errr, part of OpenSSL
fsdb(8)
newsyslog(8)

A separate matter would be the question of what validation is done on dates supplied for the user database.  (I see what you mean about arms, heh.)

Dave
> 
> From: Martin Husemann <martin@duskware.de>
> Date: 2004/11/29 Mon AM 03:35:40 EST
> To: dhgutteridge@sympatico.ca
> CC: gnats-admin@netbsd.org,  netbsd-bugs@netbsd.org
> Subject: Re: bin/28450: date(1) does not validate its input and accepts and processes impossible dates
> 
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 03:45:00AM +0000, dhgutteridge@sympatico.ca wrote:
> > I have supplied a proposed patch which
> 
> You know, if you reach a finger we'll take your arm...
> 
> I like this, but I think it might make sense to have badvalue() print the
> "decoded" date string, as the format is .. not exactly human friendly,
> given how many variations of the order exists and the many optional parts...
> 
> While there, could you check other commands that take a date string?
> at(1), cal(1), probably others.
> 
> Martin
>