Simon Burge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Talking about date dates, I submitted a patch with the subject
> ``y2k'' patch
> in late January that deals with broken MUAs - can that one be included
> too? I can resend that message if necessary.
Oops. Sorry about that, Simon -- no need to re-send -- I didn't lose it. I
was putting it off for a couple of reasons. One was that I never got any
response to my commentary:
Dan Harkless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If it were me I might be tempted to make this behavior controllable (with
> the default to do your adjustment). It's feasible that a MUA could have a
> different bug making the year be "00" (not just during the year 2000), so
> the adjustment wouldn't be correcting the error, just changing it to be a
> different one (which could lead to misleading bug reports on those MUAs).
>
> Also someone might be doing something bizarre like OCR'ing in a bunch of
> written correspondence (so they could throw away the hardcopies) and making
> them into fake MH messages. That correspondence might extend before 1900.
> I know, a pretty unlikely scenario (though, in a similar vein, if I were
> moving files off of obsolete computer systems, I would want to use 'touch'
> to restore their original dates, if whatever transfer protocol I was using
> didn't do so).
>
> Speaking of old years, if you wanted to, you could change your year 1969 to
> 1972, when email was invented.
Also, you changed dtimep.lex without making a new dtimep.c-lexed. My main
workstation runs AIX, which is unable to successfully lex the file, so I
knew I'd have to mess around with a few other machines to find one that'd be
able to lex the file and hopefully not change anything else besides #line
directives and your new code.
Another thing is that when testing scanning a message with a year of "00",
it got rewritten to "2000" even without your patch, which threw me a little
("100" dates were not fixed without your patch). Guess there's now some
redundant adjustment code somewhere?
Finally, I guess I got distracted from your patch by the discussion on
absurd Y2K windowing patents. ;^>
In any case, I've applied your patch, with the modifications from my
commentary above. Here are my related ChangeLog entries:
* Applied Simon Burge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'s dtimep.lex patch:
It seems that some MUA's didn't handle y2k very well - ELM
seems to be one of them, and Ultrix's DXmail (based on MH!).
I've got a few emails this month that look like:
575 Jan 00 Xxxxxx Xxxx 3603 ...
and
22+ Jan 00 Xxx Xxxxx 1771 ...
The first has "15 Jan 100" as the date and the second has
"19 Jan 00" as the date. The following works around this so
that scan, show, sortm, etc work ok.
I put Simon's patch under the control of a new #define called
FIX_NON_Y2K_COMPLIANT_MUA_DATES. There's some commentary in
acconfig.h about when you might not want to #define it.
* Created new dtimep.c-lexed with Simon's change using dtimep.lex
lexed on Solaris 2.6. Added missing dependency in
zotnet/tws/Makefile.in for dtimep.c: dtimep.c-lexed.
* Added scan.MMDDYY and scan.YYYYMMDD format files.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Harkless | To prevent SPAM contamination, please
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | do not post this private email address
SpeedGate Communications, Inc. | to the USENET or WWW. Thank you.
