On Tue, Jan 04, 2000 at 10:40:46 +0100, Martin Schröder wrote:
> On 2000-01-01 19:12:28 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > Mutt as a small y2k problem on the receiving end. While mutt works
> > just fine with four-digit year numbers, RFC 822 originally specifies
> > two-digit year numbers, which still seem to be permitted. (Not that
> > any one should be using them nowadays... However, at least one user
> > seems to have stumbled over them in the wild already.)
>
> The year 100 is converted by date_format="%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S %Z" to
> 2000. Problem of mutt or of strftime?
Fortunately, time machines don't exist. Otherwise I don't know how
one could write a mail in year 99; perhaps 0099? What is the minimal
year that is accepted?
--
Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - PhD student in Computer Science
Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> or <http://www.ens-lyon.fr/~vlefevre/> - 100%
validated HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International
des Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc.
