On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 09:45 +0800, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/25.94.html#subj11
> I suggest someone send RISKS a clarification if indeed the issue is resolved.
I suggest the author checks the facts. The following quote, the
beginning of that, err... text, is utter bullshit.
In RISKS-25.89 ("Y2K+10 problem 4: SpamAssassin tags '2010' e-mail as
spammish") M. Burstein wrote that the problem was that "It seems the 'year
date' was hard/hand coded, as opposed to making a comparison to 'today's'
date." and observed that "The SpamAssassin folk have a new version which
corrects this problem." In fact, they do not. The replacement rule
incorporates the same problem as before, scheduled to occur simply ten years
further into the future, in January 2020. This mistake has not been learned
from, let alone corrected.
There are bugs open about this. There are rules currently under
evaluation, which will make this a fluid target, rather than a hardcoded
year.
We've got ten years, to close that bug and finish the evaluation. And
even to come up with a more narrow definition of "grossly in the
future".
Yes, that quote is what you get if you base your judgement *and* future
predictions solely on the incident -- but forget to check current
development and what's being done to prevent it.
That quote hardly was worth my reply. *sigh*
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
