From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat May 31 14:15:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA13434 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 14:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from radford.i-plus.net (root@Radford.i-Plus.net [206.99.237.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA13410 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 14:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from abyss (pitlord@Abyss.i-plus.net [206.99.237.44]) by radford.i-plus.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA02809; Sat, 31 May 1997 17:12:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199705312112.RAA02809@radford.i-plus.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Troy Settle" To: "Brian Somers" , "Terry Lambert" Cc: Subject: Re: fetch Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 17:13:51 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE Engine V4.71.0544.0 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk From: Terry Lambert >> Hi, >> >> My ISP (demon.co.uk) sends http dates like this: >> >> Sat, 31-May-97 10:48:56 GMT >> >> According to http.c in the fetch sources, it's expecting >> a full year here, ie. >> >> Sat, 31-May-1997 10:48:56 ..... >> >> Has anyone any objection to me making it allow the first ? > >As long as you treat it as the year 0097, no objection at all; >otherwise you are introducing a year 2000 error. > >Has demon refused to correct their server software? Or have >they not been asked? > Why not treat a 2 digit year as a year in the current century? no y2k problem. no y3k problem, etc.. Really though, a 2 digit year is just a lazy way of writing the date. It's human readable, but is a pain for software to interpret correctly. There's no reason for any software to use a 2 digit year except for formatted user input/output. Just an opinion, -- Troy Settle Network Administrator, iPlus Internet Services http://www.i-Plus.net