> Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:53:35 -0700 > From: Jason R. Mastaler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: year 2038 (was Re: dated confustion) > > "Benjamin J. Stassart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I have no idea if TMDA is 2038 compliant and I would hope it doesn't > > use a two digit year, so I don't know if "dated=100Y" works. > > This depends not on TMDA, but on your Unix OS where times are > represented as seconds since the Epoch (midnight Jan 1, 1970). On > 32-bit systems, signed longs of 32 bits give you a range of just over > 68 years, so in 2038 you will run out of bits.
I thought that might be the case. The first number looked like the Unix time_t seconds since the Epoch. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ./tmda-check-address [EMAIL PROTECTED] > STATUS: VALID > EXPIRES: Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038 UTC On my Linux box, I get: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> tmda-address -d 100Y [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> fg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> tmda-check-address [EMAIL PROTECTED] STATUS: VALID EXPIRES: Fri Dec 13 20:45:52 1901 UTC Although, I've been lazy and I'm still using TMDA 0.86. (More that I hate making changes that could mess up user's mail). I doubt that makes a difference, but I thought I should fess up in case there has been a bug fix there. Benjamin J. Stassart ------------------------------------------------+ A great many people think they are thinking | when they are merely rearranging their | prejudices | _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
