newnews y2k bug in 2.2.1

[James_Brister at iengines.com]

Yep. nnrpd should fix broken date headers. I wonder if a notation should be
made in the article that the date was fixed.

On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 20:08:19 +0100, Sven Paulus <sven at tin.org> said:

> In article <E11j5BP-0000Hm-00 at imperator.oops.inka.de> you wrote:
> |> I think, this should be committed during the next 60 days. A lot of clients
> |> do a NEWGROUPS command on startup, so many, many people would get
> |> error messages when doing their first newspoll in the new year.

> Another question concerning Y2K:

> nnrpd/innd accept postings with broken date headers like
> Date: 01 jan 100 00:00:00
> which is nice when dealing with dumb client software.

> But I guess an article with a header like this won't have a chance to
> propagate good within usenet (how do diablo, highwind, cnews deal with Date
> headers like this?). Shouldn't we try to fix the date header (I think in
> this case it's allowed, since it doesn't change the information contained
> inside the header) to something like "01 jan 2000" when receiving an article
> with a header like the one above?

> Of course only in nnrpd's post.c, innd itself shouldn't alter any article
> headers other than Path and Xref. Parsing the header to seconds since 1970
> and regenerating it is easy. Of course, only in this special broken case.
> "Good" Date headers should be left untouched.

> Any opinions?

> Sven


-- 
James Brister                                            brister at iengines.com
Internet Engines Inc. / Internet Software Consortium     brister at vix.com