From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jun 1 17:07:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA15240 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 17:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from panda.hilink.com.au (panda.hilink.com.au [203.8.15.25]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA15233 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 17:07:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from danny@localhost) by panda.hilink.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA29865; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 10:07:22 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 10:07:21 +1000 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" To: Richard Toren cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fetch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Richard Toren wrote: > I think this type of thinking ("assume current century") is how > the 2-digit years got started; and what got us into the 2K problem. > > The boundry conditions are where that assumption breaks. Clock drift or just > lucky timing has the item dated 12-31-99 23:58 and received 1-1-00 00:03. > Was it sent 99 years in the future? The next kludge is to create some special Aren't people making this harder than it really is? Look at the sources for date(1). Unix starts in 1970. If a 2 digit year is < 70, then add 2000, else add 1900. See date.c line 188 or so. Danny