Sloppy error checking in MS code

[Glenn Steen]

On 17/12/06, Pete Russell <pete at enitech.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> Res wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Richard Lynch wrote:
> >
> >> I doubt anything would quiet them. Axiom: If one is looking for fault
> >> one will find it. Corollary: You will find whatever you are looking for.
> >>
> >> It's not necessary to check every possible failure just the important
> >> ones or the ones you want to handle.  The question becomes "Does MS
> >> check enough of them?".  I don't know the code so I can't say.  I can,
> >> however, say this.
> >>
> >> 1) MS protects over 1 billion messages a day (from the web page).
> >> 2) We use it to process approx 2 million messages a day.
> >> 3) We have had little to no problems with MS.
> >>
> >> For us the answer to the question is, yes, MS checks enough of them,
> >
> >
>
> Its funny, seem that only the users on the postfix list experience
> problems, or theorise about them. I have been using postfix and MS for
> 4+ years and i have never experienced any problems, except that postfix
> cant split the multi recipient inbound message into individual queue
> files. But that's a postfix problem...
... Easily... is what you meant to say, I hope:-)

As to the rest... Pointing people to the correct forum would be one
thing (like we do when people ask about DefenderMX or OpenProtect).
It's the vehement allegations of non-functionality that baffles me.
Like you, I've been using this combination for quite a while, with no
ill effects whatsoever.

-- 
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se