<DKIM> Exit status

[Nicolas Sebrecht]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:41:24PM -0400, Isaac Bennetch wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm noticing some odd behavior with offlineimap, but was hoping for a
> quick sanity check before I open a bug ticket.
> 
> I've recently enabled two-factor authentication on a Gmail account, but
> haven't yet set up an application-specific password yet. I expect
> offlineimap to fail, and indeed I get the following exception/error/crash:
> 
> > PLAIN authentication failed: [ALERT] Application-specific password required: http://support.google.com/accounts/bin/answer.py?answer=185833 (Failure)
> > LOGIN authentication failed: [ALERT] Application-specific password required: http://support.google.com/accounts/bin/answer.py?answer=185833 (Failure)
> > ERROR: Exceptions occurred during the run!
> > ERROR: All authentication types failed:
> > 	PLAIN: [ALERT] Application-specific password required: http://support.google.com/accounts/bin/answer.py?answer=185833 (Failure)
> > 	LOGIN: [ALERT] Application-specific password required: http://support.google.com/accounts/bin/answer.py?answer=185833 (Failure)
> > 
> > Traceback:
> >   File "/Library/Python/2.7/site-packages/offlineimap/accounts.py", line 241, in syncrunner
> >     self.sync()
> >   File "/Library/Python/2.7/site-packages/offlineimap/accounts.py", line 303, in sync
> >     remoterepos.getfolders()
> >   File "/Library/Python/2.7/site-packages/offlineimap/repository/IMAP.py", line 313, in getfolders
> >     imapobj = self.imapserver.acquireconnection()
> >   File "/Library/Python/2.7/site-packages/offlineimap/imapserver.py", line 415, in acquireconnection
> >     self._authn_helper(imapobj)
> >   File "/Library/Python/2.7/site-packages/offlineimap/imapserver.py", line 337, in _authn_helper
> >     "failed:\n\t%s" % msg, OfflineImapError.ERROR.REPO)
> 
> So the odd part for me is that if I check the exit status, it's 0 --
> which to me indicates success. I'm expecting a different status here to
> indicate that something went wrong; does that sound correct?

Indeed, this is a bug.

-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht