Re: Y2K

On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Byron C. Darrah wrote:

: > I do not think this is reasonable. Running tests on a Y2K compliant machine
: > at the various "Y2K important dates" and verifying date fields will make
: > most people happy. I do not know all the hoops to be "legaly certified" but
: > for free/shareware software it will not happen.
:
: Hmm, I can understand why Kent, myself, or you might not have it as a high
: priority. But if someone else, to whom the issue is more important, is
: willing to write a script or something that puts hypermail through a couple
: of simple tests, how would that be unreasonable?
:
: (I just thought I'd put this stuff out for discussion. I hope my ignorance
: isn't too offensive to anyone.)

I agree that testing hypermail for Y2K compliance is important. However you can pay lots of money to have software Y2K certified. There are real liability issues for people who charge for products, along with those who state "I am Y2K ready" and may not be.

Take a look at www.y2k.com as well as others.

My point is hypermail and much of the free world is not in the Oracle boat where there is paid support, and "assurances".

Saying we have done some testing on Y2K platforms and we are getting correct answers ok as long as we provide a disclaimer. I thing the Pine folks recently discussed this. They may have more information on their home page...

Randall Received on Fri 09 Oct 1998 11:05:14 PM GMT