Subject: FW: SUBSCRIBE WU-FTPD Ann Adams

From: "Adams, Ann (A.M.)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:19:14 -0400

Hi, just went out and downloaded your latest and greatest ftp 2.4.2.
Glancing at what is there, I didn't see any notes on Y2K.  Has  there been
any y2k testing down on it at all?  Since its public, its use at your own
risk, but I had heard that 2.4 was not y2k compliant.  Any input on this
issue?

Thanks,

Ann Adams

---

From: Gregory A Lundberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:30:17 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Adams, Ann (A.M.) wrote:

> Glancing at what is there, I didn't see any notes on Y2K.  Has there
> been any y2k testing down on it at all?  Since its public, its use at
> your own risk, but I had heard that 2.4 was not y2k compliant.  Any
> input on this issue?

I read a great response to this question a couple of days ago.  This
answer serves for Wu-FTPD as well as the package it was originally posted
about.

> This question is asked a lot lately. But it is exceptionally stupid,
> because:
> 1. Are some random guys off the Internet trustworthy enough so you
>    could trust their word if they said "yes"?
> 2. You have the source code, go look for yourself
> The answer is: [it] should be Y2K compliant.  But we don't really
> care.

Other responses I've seen point out that Unix software generally does not
have problems with dates (except, of course, the The Day the World Shall
End: January 18, 2038); simply asking the question shows a lack of
understanding of Unix.

My personal favorite response is: Who knows?  Who care?  Nobody seems to
know what the Y2K problem is, or what Y2K compliance means.  You cannot
comply with a standard unless a standard has been set, and there is no
definition for the term 'Y2K compliance' nor a standard for 'Y2K
compliance' to which one might adhere.

Be thankful you have the source code available to you.  Any so-called
'statement of compliance' from a vendor who will not provide the source
code is completely worthless; they don't know what it means to you, you
don't know what standard they're complying to, and you have no recourse if
it turns out you think something is broken (read their statements, they
invariable say, in effect, "We don't think it's broken, but don't bother
us about it if it is because we don't know what you're talking about").
With source code at least you can check it first and fix it later if
something breaks.

Where should you look in the source code?  I don't know.  The FTP protocol
doesn't use dates or even times, except in a couple of commentary strings
sent to the remote user.  If there's a problem in them it's probably the
remote client's problem not the server's.  I will point out that a change
was made a couple of years ago to support a perticular broken client's
(mis)interpretation of one of these responses.  That change probably
represents the entire set of date or time related modifications made to
the daemon.

The location of the latest version of wu-ftpd can be found in the 
directory
 
      ftp://ftp.vr.net/pub/wu-ftpd/
 
wu-ftpd Resource Center:  http://www.landfield.com/wu-ftpd/
wu-ftpd FAQ:              http://www.cetis.hvu.nl/~koos/wu-ftpd-faq.html
wu-ftpd list archive:     http://www.landfield.com/wu-ftpd/mail-archive/
-- 

Gregory A Lundberg              Senior Partner, VRnet Company
1441 Elmdale Drive              [email-masked]
Kettering, OH 45409-1615 USA    1-800-809-2195