parsedate.c bug?

[Earl Dukerschein]

I have found some articles in bit.listserv.techwr-l with a date line of:

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 100 08:27:11 -0500

Note the year.

My guess is that in parsedate.c (2.2.1 and 2.2.2) several conditions of "> 100"
should be ">= 100".  But I leave it to folks more familiar with the code to 
verify this.

If a year is 0 through 100, 1900 is added to it.  100 + 1900 = 2000.  So
a valid date is made of an invalid date.

Full text of article is below:

Path: 
newsspool.doit.wisc.edu!news.doit.wisc.edu!nntp.chorus.net!newsfeed.sgi.net! 
baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!
diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsxfer.visi.n 
et!mur2.odyssey.on.ca!odyssey!news.uunet
.ca!gts!news
Return-Path: <bounce-techwr-l-9607 at lists.raycomm.com>
From: margulis at mail.fiam.net ("Dick Margulis")
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.techwr-l
Subject: RE: Level of writing
Message-ID: 
<LYRIS-9607-3732-2000.02.11-05.41.35--techwr-l#GTS.ORG at lists.raycomm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 100 08:27:11 -0500
Approved: news at GTS.Net
Reply-To: "Dick Margulis" <margulis at mail.fiam.net>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l at lists.raycomm.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-techwr-l-9607E at lists.raycomm.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:subscribe-techwr-l at lists.raycomm.com>
List-Owner: <mailto:owner-techwr-l at lists.raycomm.com>
X-URL: <http://lists.raycomm.com/techwhirl/subscribercentral.html>
X-List-Host: RayComm, Inc., List Hosting <http://lists.raycomm.com>
X-Message-Id: <200002110827687.SM00190 at mail.fiam.net>
Precedence: bulk
Lines: 53
Xref: newsspool.doit.wisc.edu bit.listserv.techwr-l:46132

It depends. <g>

I spend five years doing production work on scholarly journals. The people 
at the top of their respective fields, do
ing the most important work, as a rule, wrote eloquently, fluidly, using a 
respectful but not overly formal tone, ad
dressing the reader in second person when that made sense, using folksy 
analogies when that helped clarify a point.

The younger, less secure, less important contributors, as a rule, wrote 
stilted, passive, third-person, convoluted,
impenetrable prose.

Some of this broke down along disciplinary lines, influenced greatly by the 
editors of the journals. The Comparative
  Education Review, for example, seemed to operate under the assumption 
that a four-syllable word was always preferab
le to a one-syllable word and a paragraph consisting of three 250-word 
complex sentences was always preferable to a
series of shorter paragraphs consisting of simpler sentences. I always had 
the impression these people were conceali
ng the fact that they had nothing interesting to say.

On the other hand, the American Journal of Human Genetics was edited to be 
clear and succinct, despite the fact that
  the subject matter was intricately subtle and complex and of much greater 
importance to the advancement of human kn
owledge than anything in CER.

So when an academic tells me that academic writing is "supposed to be that 
way," I try to consider the source.

Just my .02

Dick