Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Paul Jarc wrote: >> Note that "can't access mailbox" is mentioned distinctly from "no such >> mailbox". > > You're reading too much into that. "Can't access mailbox" covers such > normal cases as protection failures.
Good. That's the sort of error I have in mind - EACCES, ENOENT, etc. So those should be reported with NO, then? > It is not a mandate that all instances of "horrible error #69" must be > handled in that way. > > "Horrible error #69" conditions shouldn't ever happen. I don't know what "horrible error #69" means to you, but I wasn't thinking of preventable errors. My server will certainly prevent the errors it can prevent. > I personally feel that trying to be clever about handling an > "impossible" error interferes with the diagnosis and repair of the > problem. I think failing to check for an error because it is thought to be impossible, and failing to report an error when it occurs, interfere with the diagnosis and repair. paul
