 | | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
(...) No -- it's using C News, because it's got a much smaller memory footprint than INN and is better suited to serving large numbers of simultaneous NNTP connections to small numbers of groups (groups in the hundreds rather than tens of (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
(...) Update: Well, that fixes the NEWGROUPS command all right, but the NEWNEWS command is doing something more insidious afterwards with date strings. Still digging...old nntpd is still in place. Oddly, the NNTP Reference Implementation distro (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
(...) OK, the other thing the NEWNEWS command was doing was comparing 12-character date strings (for example, "991231235959" is the last second of 1999) as generated by a function ltod() which called sprintf with values obtained via gmtime(), which (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
(...) :) Good job; and thanks. (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
(...) The NNTP protocol is _not_ Y2K broken going by the quoted bit of RFC, though. Assuming Epoch for NNTP is the reasonable assumption, and the RFC specifies what to do with that assumption - so NNTP isn't broken for another 70 years (By which (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
(...) Sorry, you're right, and I didn't mean to misquote Matthew. Anyway, I didn't mean broken in the non-workable sense, I meant broken in the poorly-designed sense[1]. The NNTP protocol shouldn't have to define that a two-digit year means 1900+xx (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
(...) Oh, absolutely. (...) Yup. Maybe this was back when dates in Date: were also stored as two digits? (At least, ISTR that used to be the case). Ah well, on to Y10K. Jasper (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
(...) Actually, long before that, there'll be problems with all the windowing dates people picked.... Like, is 700101 for 2070? :) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
(...) True enough. Well, there's always the 32-bit Unix date wraparound to get paranoid about. :) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
(...) Well, yeah, but those don't all happen at the same time.. And most of the truly critical systems can't use windowing anyway, due there being people who live longer than 100 years, etc.etc. Jasper (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
(...) Awrighty, I just installed the new nntpd on the other 3 ports. Now all four ports of 119, 1119, 8000, and 8080 have the new nntpd. Tony, has the problem now vanished? --Todd [cc'ing a copy to Tony via email] (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Todd Lehman (<387104e3.86108693@...gnet.com>) wrote at 20:24:53 (...) Yep. Thanks very much :-) While I could just about follow your code, I couldn't really contribute anything useful, so I just bowed out for a while. I *do* now (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
(...) Spiffy! Are you going to make the patches publicly available somewhere? Maybe there's a CNews newsgroup? Jasper (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
(...) The patches are pretty simple, just line replacements, and the second one (the ltod() one) is a semi-bogus hack that could blow up other parts of the nntpd if anyone ever adds additional calls to ltod() that assumed a 6-character output string (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Leapyears (was Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help...))
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: ... (...) Way back in 1983, someone reported a "problem" with our operating system not figuring leap years correctly, and was given this explanation (and I was worried about posting this until I found it (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
(...) <URL:(URL) "an extra calendar day is added every four years, as was first done in 46 BC, with the establishment of the Julian calendar. Over many centuries, the difference between the approximate value 0.25 day and the more accurate 0.242 day (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Leap-seconds (was: Re: Leapyears (was Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help...)))
|
|
(...) LOL! --Todd (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Leap-seconds (was: Re: Leapyears (was Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help...)))
|
|
Thanks for the redirect... I realized it should go in .geek but unfortionately that realization came post-posting. -S (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
(...) OK, just found this via Deja.com -- a guy named Dan Glover did some relatively extensive work on this about 3-4 weeks ago: (URL) think his solutions are a bit more robust than what I did[1], and I'll probably install his patch in place of my (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Leap-seconds (was: Re: Leapyears (was Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help...)))
|
|
(...) Come now, atomic clocks aren't that expensive. Probably you can get one for $10k or less. Surplus should be way cheaper. Jasper (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Leap-seconds (was: Re: Leapyears (was Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help...)))
|
|
(...) Nobody said they were or weren't! DEC was just saying that they chose not to be a supplier. Whoever it was at DEC that wrote that response is a brilliant master of the art of educating and amusing at the same time. At least that's my opinion. (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Leap-seconds (was: Re: Leapyears (was Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help...)))
|
|
(...) at least not back in '83 :-) nah, actually never did that I know of at any point afterwards either. oh well, would have been a cool feature. -S (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
(...) Dan Glover - the name seems familiar, but I can't figure out from his Author Profile from where. Maybe from a mailing list or something. Or from one of the Places that aren't on deja. (...) Saw Dan posted twice to there within Deja's archive (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help! My newsreader's downloading everything on lugnet!)
|
|
(...) Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon(s)? :) Julie (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Leap-seconds (was: Re: Leapyears (was Y2K problem with lugnet! (was Re: Help...)))
|
|
(...) Absolutely. I've seen it (or possibly a link) posted in the Sacry Devil Monastery and/or the Other Place fairly recently. The denizens all had a good laugh. (...) xntpd. Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
