Eric S. Raymond (esr(_at_)thyrsus(_dot_)com) wrote:
Adam Spiers <adam(_at_)spiers(_dot_)net>:
Would it be possible to make fetchmail more robust in this situation,
and just treat it in the same way as it would an empty folder? This
would be a very worthwhile option IMHO.
Unfortunately. I don't think so. Within the RFCs, I don't know of a way
for fetchmail to tell a ninexistent mailbox from other error conditions
that it really should barf on.
A typical server reply for this error condition is something like:
fetchmail: IMAP< A0005 NO EXAMINE failed: Can't open mailbox
mail/inboxes/foo: no such mailbox
Surely it wouldn't be dangerous to add a simple pattern match for
errors like this, while leaving the behaviour for unrecognised errors
as it is currently?
Am I the only fetchmail user who doesn't keep empty mailboxes? :-)