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 December
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 major
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 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 refers
[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
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
