Brian Servis wrote: > The bug by the way is the result of sloppy programming. There is a c > library call that returns the year as the number of years from 1900, > also used in perl's Time::Local. Authors were using that as the two > digit year or just appending it to 19, so you are either seeing years of > 100 or years of 19100.
Actually the bug is due to some annoying vagueness in the nntp RFC. Not really slrn's fult. -- see shy jo
