On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Peter Radcliffe wrote:
> There is a comment on the web page:
> http://www-th.phys.rug.nl/~schut/gnulist.html
> stating that exim is not Y2k compliant:
>
> exim-2.02 1998-09-24 JJ.Schut NOT-OK Assumes year between
> 1990 and 2090 in smartuser.c, lines 243+.
> if (year < 90) year += 100;
> else if (year > 1900) year -= 1900;
>
> This doesn't make sense to me. If exim is ok until 2090, why is it not y2k
> safe ?
> (besides the point that using 2 digit years in any context is a Bad Thing).
Ho! Ho! Ho! Ho! Lots and lots of hollow laughter from me. The shows up
the Perils of Looking at Source Without Understanding it.
The code in question was part of an experimental scheme I wrote over a
year ago, for managing "time-limited" email addresses, to be used in
Usenet postings. The scheme was not liked, and I withdrew it before it
ever got into a proper release. However some people said "leave the code
in the source", so I did, but it does not get compiled in the normal
course of events. It is surrounded by
#ifdef ALLOW_EXPIRE
#endif
and that macro is nowhere defined or explained. The code may well have
decayed and not work any more. Perhaps the time has come to delete it
completely. I will do so unless somebody objects pretty smartly (as
there is likely to be a 2.12 release fairly soon - releasing 2.11 caused
bugs in previous versions to get reported).
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
