Sloppy error checking in MS code
mikej at rogers.com
Sat Dec 16 23:13:52 GMT 2006
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Mike Jakubik wrote:
>> system call produce? I believe what distinguishes good software from
>> bad is how the software handles errors. What you are saying seems to
>> contradict, as
> If I have to evaluate two pieces of software, doing the exact same thing.
> One that checks for every single error code (as is apparently so
> important to you and the postfix crybabies, and lets not forget Venema
> has always had somthing against MS) and takes 5 minutes to process a
> batch of 50 msgs, and one that checks for the only really needed calls
> that does a batch of 50 in 5 seconds, the latter wins hands down.
The overhead of checking the errorlevel a function returns is almost
non-existent, and indeed some functions are checked properly in the
sendmail code, but not the in postfix code, why?
More information about the MailScanner