Re: new gmime/gpg bug

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,
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!


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!).

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]