Re: new gmime/gpg bug

[Pawel Salek <pawsa theochem kth se>]

On 07/04/2004 06:05:21 PM, Albrecht Dreß wrote:
> Am 03.07.04 22:06 schrieb(en) Pawel Salek:
> > On related note: we have gmime-2.1.3 dated 2004.04.01 on the balsa
> > website. Would you recommend other version/date?
>
>  This is a *really* good question... there have been several  crypto- 
> related  fixes since then (if you have a look at the Changelog), but  
> there are  also  several api changes, marking frequently used  
> functions as depracted  (e.g.  g_mime_part_get_content()).You may  
> remember that I posted several  crypto  related improvements already  
> in 2.0 a while ago which were never  accepted  (see   
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/balsa-list/2004-May/msg00067.html),
> and they require gmime 2.1.5 or later.

I guess I can commit that patch if gmime-2.1.5 does not break anything  
else: I trust your judgement!

Pawel

>  From my point of view, balsa *must* switch to a never version if  
> Jeff   fixes the long-standing multipart/signature bug, as in the  
> current  version  the rfc 3156 implementation (and even without this  
> new bug; I  meanwhile  strace'd my test app, so I could *really*  
> verify that gpg gets  different  boundaries than those gmime  
> returns!) is unreliable and therefore  more  or  less unusable. I  
> must admit that I therefore have very mixed feelings   about Balsa  
> 2.2; at least we should not advertise it as a MUA which  supports  
> crypto - which is obviously a step backward (and, yes, there  is   
> some frustration on my side!).