>I'm willing to bet if I look back in the prior 3 decades I'll find myself >asking the same question and the infrequency of it bugging me, is a strong >indication of how (un)important it is. > >maybe I'd move my marker and ask if it could become a "soft" error on scan: > >% ls -F | sort -n | tail -5; >586 >587 >588/ >589 >590 >% scan +sent >... > 584 2024/06/17 To:Leo Li > 585 2024/06/18 To:APNIC Office > 586 2024/06/18 To:Dan Fidler > 587 2024/06/18 To:Joao Damas >scan: unable to read: Is a directory >scan: scan() botch (-3)
This happens because open() failing is considered a "soft" error and scan will continue, but read() failing is considered a hard error. I'd be willing to consider read() failing with EISDIR a soft error. Thoughts from others? --Ken
