On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 09:28:11AM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> John Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > At least on my system, time_t is signed. Sometime in January 2038 it
> > flips back to sometime in January 1901. I think that's the common
> > implementation.
>
> I assume you mean
John Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> At least on my system, time_t is signed. Sometime in January 2038 it
> flips back to sometime in January 1901. I think that's the common
> implementation.
I assume you mean December 1901.
I've heard about this signed implementation, but never seen it in
p
On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 04:51:01PM -0800, David Good wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 01:45:23PM -0800, Michael Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 12:49:26PM +, Lars Hecking wrote:
> > > I'm not sure about the if (tm.tm_year < 70) part. According the UNIX98
> > >
On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 01:45:23PM -0800, Michael Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 12:49:26PM +, Lars Hecking wrote:
> > I'm not sure about the if (tm.tm_year < 70) part. According the UNIX98
> > specification by The Open Group, which has been adopted by all majo
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 12:49:26PM +, Lars Hecking wrote:
> I'm not sure about the if (tm.tm_year < 70) part. According the UNIX98
> specification by The Open Group, which has been adopted by all major
> Unix vendors, two-digit years 69-99 refer to the 20th century (19xx),
> and 00-68 re
Thomas Roessler writes:
> [Given that there have been several people asking for this recently,
> I'm reposting this message. I guess I should start to release
> 1.0.1...]
>
> Mutt as a small y2k problem on the receiving end. While mutt works
> just fine with four-digit year numbers, RFC 822 or
[Given that there have been several people asking for this recently,
I'm reposting this message. I guess I should start to release
1.0.1...]
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 nu
