Thanks, Ben. My apologies to the list members for my unclear query. I appreciate the help of, and did not mean to slight, those who have stated their belief that the library is compliant. What I meant by "reliable statement" was simply an easily-accessible document containing some arguments in favour of Y2K compliance. It's in my nature to desire logical proof of most assertions, even if they are not dubious. :) I was hoping somebody else had examined the code in detail, and that they had made available publicly their findings. Well.. I've rambled on long enough. - b. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Laurie [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 9:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Y2K (last attempt) > > Bernie Pallek wrote: > > > > Hi again everyone.. > > > > Can someone point me to a reliable statement that the > > SSLeay/openSSL library is Y2K-compliant? Thanks for > > any responses. > > What do you mean by reliable? I'm sure I remember a few people saying > they believed it to be compliant. > > If you want someone to put their neck on the line, well, it may be that > that could be arranged, but its sure to take money. If you want a > professional opinion, ditto. Or perhaps you'd like it tested? I expect > that could be arranged, too. > > OTOH, you could assure yourself of its compliance by reading the source. > > Cheers, > > Ben. > > -- > http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html > > "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those > who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the > first group; there was less competition there." > - Indira Gandhi > ______________________________________________________________________ > OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org > Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
