Sloppy error checking in MS code

[Mike Jakubik]

Res wrote:
> 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?