procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: probably a stupid question

1998-09-23 13:35:34
1998-09-23-12:35:12 Janet Sedgley:
I am not a member of list nor am I a unix or procmail expert.  I am the Year
2000 coordinator for our University.  As such, I need to check to see
whether certain programs we use are Year 2000 compliant.  I am wondering
whether procmail is Year 2000 compliant.  Can someone email me directly with
any leads to the answer to this question?

Well, from a simple ogle of the grep over the sources, it looks like there may
be a Y2038 problem in the autoconf test code: unsigned otimet = time(). And
another, possibly less likely to express itself, in formail.c: unsigned long
h1 = time(). Those could express themselves when 32-bit signed time_t wraps;
long before then the time_t define should have been changed to something that
is bigger, even it's "long long". The above type-mixes may fail to profit from
a suitably redefined time_t, and so may overflow on 2038.

I don't see any Y2K problems, though. And email headers use four-digit years
pretty consistently, so that should all be cool.

This estimation doesn't constitute an in-depth Y2k audit of procmail, but the
source code to procmail is ... kinda dense for in-depth auditing.

-Bennett

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>