I have found a year 2000 bug in Seamonkey

The article below appears at the top of my rss feed which is sorted by
date, latest first. The date in the date column is 30/11/02. But the
date of the article is 1966. I don't know where it got the '02 date
from.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1966/oct/24/britishidentity.fromthearchive
0
Richmond
7/14/2017 9:35:56 PM
mozilla.support.seamonkey 12428 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

16 Replies
21 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 2

On 14/07/2017 23:35, Richmond wrote:
> The article below appears at the top of my rss feed which is sorted by
> date, latest first. The date in the date column is 30/11/02. But the
> date of the article is 1966. I don't know where it got the '02 date
> from.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1966/oct/24/britishidentity.fromthearchive

What's the RSS feed's URL?

Is it https://www.theguardian.com/uk/rss ? (Apparently not)

Regards.
0
Mason83
7/14/2017 10:55:13 PM
On 7/14/2017 2:35 PM, Richmond wrote:
> The article below appears at the top of my rss feed which is sorted by
> date, latest first. The date in the date column is 30/11/02. But the
> date of the article is 1966. I don't know where it got the '02 date
> from.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1966/oct/24/britishidentity.fromthearchive
> 

I noticed that there is no RSS icon in the URI area when I load the
cited Guardian news article.

How long have you subscribed to an RSS feed from the Guardian?  I notice
that, when I subscribe to a new feed, I often get a lot of old feed
messages from that source.

-- 
David Ross

<http://www.rossde.com/>
President Trump now denies there are any tapes that
recorded his conversations with ex-FBI Director Comey.
Between when Trump hinted there might be such tapes
and his denial, there was sufficient time to destroy
any tapes.
0
David
7/15/2017 12:44:58 AM
Which SeaMonkey version?
2.50+ and TB53+ suffer from limitations due to Mozilla locale api changes. 
They are slowly fixed.

Richmond wrote:
> The article below appears at the top of my rss feed which is sorted by
> date, latest first. The date in the date column is 30/11/02. But the
> date of the article is 1966. I don't know where it got the '02 date
> from.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1966/oct/24/britishidentity.fromthearchive
> 

0
Frank
7/15/2017 7:29:53 AM
Mason83 <root@dom.invalid> writes:

> On 14/07/2017 23:35, Richmond wrote:
>> The article below appears at the top of my rss feed which is sorted by
>> date, latest first. The date in the date column is 30/11/02. But the
>> date of the article is 1966. I don't know where it got the '02 date
>> from.
>> 
>> https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1966/oct/24/britishidentity.fromthearchive
>
> What's the RSS feed's URL?
>
> Is it https://www.theguardian.com/uk/rss ? (Apparently not)
>
> Regards.

I think it is this one:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/rss
0
Richmond
7/15/2017 12:15:30 PM
Frank-Rainer Grahl <frg@gmx.com> writes:

> Which SeaMonkey version?
> 2.50+ and TB53+ suffer from limitations due to Mozilla locale api
> changes. They are slowly fixed.


2.49.1
0
Richmond
7/15/2017 12:16:35 PM
"David E. Ross" <nobody@nowhere.invalid> writes:

> On 7/14/2017 2:35 PM, Richmond wrote:
>> The article below appears at the top of my rss feed which is sorted by
>> date, latest first. The date in the date column is 30/11/02. But the
>> date of the article is 1966. I don't know where it got the '02 date
>> from.
>> 
>> https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1966/oct/24/britishidentity.fromthearchive
>> 
>
> I noticed that there is no RSS icon in the URI area when I load the
> cited Guardian news article.
>
> How long have you subscribed to an RSS feed from the Guardian?  I notice
> that, when I subscribe to a new feed, I often get a lot of old feed
> messages from that source.

I don't know. There is an article from 1999 in there. But the date
received is 2016, so I guess since 2016 at least.
0
Richmond
7/15/2017 12:19:15 PM
Richmond <p1299721@protonmail.com> writes:

> Frank-Rainer Grahl <frg@gmx.com> writes:
>
>> Which SeaMonkey version?
>> 2.50+ and TB53+ suffer from limitations due to Mozilla locale api
>> changes. They are slowly fixed.
>
>
> 2.49.1

Compiled by me.
0
Richmond
7/15/2017 12:20:37 PM
Richmond via support-seamonkey wrote:
> Mason83 <root@dom.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 14/07/2017 23:35, Richmond wrote:
>>> The article below appears at the top of my rss feed which is
>>> sorted by date, latest first. The date in the date column is
>>> 30/11/02. But the date of the article is 1966. I don't know where
>>> it got the '02 date from.
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1966/oct/24/britishidentity.fromthearchive

This doesn't look like a "year 2000" bug. That's more a result of the 
ambiguity of years represented by just two digits so, for example, it's 
not certain whether 24/10/66 refers to 1966 or 2066.

>> What's the RSS feed's URL?
>>
>> Is it https://www.theguardian.com/uk/rss ? (Apparently not)
>>
>> Regards.
>
> I think it is this one:
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/rss

The article in question doesn't seem to be currently included in that 
feed (presumably its an entry you downloaded previously) so I can't tell 
for certain, but my suspicion would be that the wrong date was included 
in the RRS data. Perhaps 30/11/02 (presumably 2002, not 1902!) is the 
date the article was digitised or uploaded to their website, whereas 
24/10/1966 looks like the original print publication date.

-- 
Mark.

0
mozilla
7/15/2017 1:28:54 PM
On 7/15/2017 5:20 AM, Richmond wrote:
> Richmond <p1299721@protonmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Frank-Rainer Grahl <frg@gmx.com> writes:
>>
>>> Which SeaMonkey version?
>>> 2.50+ and TB53+ suffer from limitations due to Mozilla locale api
>>> changes. They are slowly fixed.
>>
>>
>> 2.49.1
> 
> Compiled by me.
> 

That would be a version still in development and thus likely has several
bugs not yet fixed or even known.  To avoid such bugs, use the latest
official release for end-users: 2.46.

No, 2.46 is not bug-free.  However, most of its bugs are known and
reported at <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/index.cgi>.

-- 
David Ross

<http://www.rossde.com/>
President Trump now denies there are any tapes that
recorded his conversations with ex-FBI Director Comey.
Between when Trump hinted there might be such tapes
and his denial, there was sufficient time to destroy
any tapes.
0
David
7/15/2017 2:27:22 PM
mozilla-lists.mbourne@spamgourmet.com writes:

> This doesn't look like a "year 2000" bug. That's more a result of the
> ambiguity of years represented by just two digits so, for example,
> it's not certain whether 24/10/66 refers to 1966 or 2066.
>

Well, rss feeds should not contain articles from the future, so it must
be 1966. It isn't ambiguous.

Having said that, the date field contains the full year:

  Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1966 11:59:15 GMT

> The article in question doesn't seem to be currently included in that
> feed (presumably its an entry you downloaded previously) so I can't
> tell for certain, but my suspicion would be that the wrong date was
> included in the RRS data. Perhaps 30/11/02 (presumably 2002, not
> 1902!) is the date the article was digitised or uploaded to their
> website, whereas 24/10/1966 looks like the original print publication
> date.

I guess we'll never know.
0
Richmond
7/15/2017 3:20:03 PM
Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:15:30 +0100, /Richmond/:
> Mason83 <root@dom.invalid> writes:
>> On 14/07/2017 23:35, Richmond wrote:
>> 
>>> The article below appears at the top of my rss feed which is sorted by
>>> date, latest first. The date in the date column is 30/11/02. But the
>>> date of the article is 1966. I don't know where it got the '02 date
>>> from.
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1966/oct/24/britishidentity.fromthearchive
>>
>> What's the RSS feed's URL?
>>
>> Is it https://www.theguardian.com/uk/rss ? (Apparently not)
> 
> I think it is this one:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/rss

You should be more specific whether you're using "Blogs & News Feed", or 
"Live Bookmarks" (or else) for this feed.  As far as I see date order in 
the former is just right, if you sort by date.  The later seems to list 
entries in the order returned from the server, and I'm currently seeing:

     <item>
       <title>Living in the shadow of Grenfell: 'It’s like looking into 
an open coffin'</title>
       ...
       <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:52:41 GMT</pubDate>
       ...
       <dc:date>2017-07-14T11:52:41Z</dc:date>
     </item>
     <item>
       <title>Teenager knew police were chasing him before fatal crash, 
inquest finds</title>
       ...
       <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:20:12 GMT</pubDate>
       ...
       <dc:date>2016-06-28T16:20:12Z</dc:date>
     </item>
     <item>
       <title>Acid attack victim says delivery drivers have felt unsafe 
for months</title>
       ...
       <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:35:56 GMT</pubDate>
       ...
       <dc:date>2017-07-14T17:35:56Z</dc:date>
     </item>

These being listed in exact given order in the live bookmark.

As to why this server returns a last year entry in the middle of 
"nowhere", I don't know.

-- 
Stanimir
0
Stanimir
7/15/2017 6:14:28 PM
On 15/07/2017 16:27, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 7/15/2017 5:20 AM, Richmond wrote:
>> Richmond <p1299721@protonmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Frank-Rainer Grahl <frg@gmx.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Which SeaMonkey version?
>>>> 2.50+ and TB53+ suffer from limitations due to Mozilla locale api
>>>> changes. They are slowly fixed.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2.49.1
>>
>> Compiled by me.
>>
> 
> That would be a version still in development and thus likely has several
> bugs not yet fixed or even known.  To avoid such bugs, use the latest
> official release for end-users: 2.46.

This is bad advice, in my opinion.

SM shares 95% of the code with FF and TB.

SM 2.46 is based on FF 2.49 which has been unsupported
for several months.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox/
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox-esr/

> No, 2.46 is not bug-free.  However, most of its bugs are known and
> reported at <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/index.cgi>.

Updated versions may have unknown issues, but at least
the glaring security issues have been fixed.

Regards.
0
Mason83
7/15/2017 6:41:42 PM
On 7/15/17 2:41 PM, Mason83 wrote:
> On 15/07/2017 16:27, David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 7/15/2017 5:20 AM, Richmond wrote:
>>> Richmond <p1299721@protonmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Frank-Rainer Grahl <frg@gmx.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Which SeaMonkey version?
>>>>> 2.50+ and TB53+ suffer from limitations due to Mozilla locale api
>>>>> changes. They are slowly fixed.
>>>>
>>>> 2.49.1
>>> Compiled by me.
>>>
>> That would be a version still in development and thus likely has several
>> bugs not yet fixed or even known.  To avoid such bugs, use the latest
>> official release for end-users: 2.46.
> This is bad advice, in my opinion.
>
> SM shares 95% of the code with FF and TB.
>
> SM 2.46 is based on FF 2.49 which has been unsupported
> for several months.
>
> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox/
> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox-esr/
>
>> No, 2.46 is not bug-free.  However, most of its bugs are known and
>> reported at <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/index.cgi>.
> Updated versions may have unknown issues, but at least
> the glaring security issues have been fixed.
>
> Regards.


AIUI. The core SeaMonkey developers are still working on getting 2.48 
released.

Unless you built your own version of 2.49.1 (as Richmond has done) then 
you are using Adrian's build of 2.49.1.

Which although unofficial, the SeaMonkey developers give their approval 
to use.

I'm sure 2.48 is imminent, since they announced progress a little over a 
week ago.

<https://blog.seamonkey-project.org/2017/07/07/2-48-is-spinning-and-so-is-my-head/>

-- 
Go Bucs!
Coexist <https://www.coexist.org/>
National Popular Vote <http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS - Unity Desktop

0
WaltS48
7/16/2017 11:58:27 AM
WaltS48 wrote:
> I'm sure 2.48 is imminent, since they announced progress a little over a week 
> ago.

Yes. If we are a movie we would be in postprocessing now:)

The build is done and just needs to be copied into the final location:

https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/seamonkey/candidates/2.48-candidates/build1/

As far as I know this will be the final. ewong just ran into problems with 
some update scripts. Speaking of updates. Unless you get it from your Linux 
distributor updates will not work. You need to download the full installer and 
install it manually. ewong moved the build to new distribution servers but 
gave up for now making updating from the old to the new work. Hopefully this 
will be fixed for the next update.

If you are happy with Adrians 2.49.1 don't bother. 2.49.1 still has 2 bugs 
with images in mails and geolocation notification but if you have not found 
them yet you won't :)

FRG
0
Frank
7/16/2017 3:57:35 PM
Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
> WaltS48 wrote:
>> I'm sure 2.48 is imminent, since they announced progress a little over
>> a week ago.
>
> Yes. If we are a movie we would be in postprocessing now:)
>
> The build is done and just needs to be copied into the final location:
>
> https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/seamonkey/candidates/2.48-candidates/build1/
>
>
> As far as I know this will be the final. ewong just ran into problems
> with some update scripts. Speaking of updates. Unless you get it from
> your Linux distributor updates will not work. You need to download the
> full installer and install it manually. ewong moved the build to new
> distribution servers but gave up for now making updating from the old to
> the new work. Hopefully this will be fixed for the next update.
>
> If you are happy with Adrians 2.49.1 don't bother. 2.49.1 still has 2
> bugs with images in mails and geolocation notification but if you have
> not found them yet you won't :)
>
> FRG

Are you counting ubuntuzilla as a linux distributor?  That is how I 
obtain my seamonkey updates at this time, other than manually installing 
Adrian's build.

Dave
0
David
7/16/2017 4:09:31 PM
Yes. The SeaMonkey project does not provide these.
FRG

David H. Durgee wrote:
> 
> Are you counting ubuntuzilla as a linux distributor?

0
Frank
7/16/2017 5:48:23 PM
Reply: