Re: new gmime/gpg bug
- From: Pawel Salek <pawsa theochem kth se>
- To: Albrecht Dreß <albrecht dress arcor de>
- Cc: balsa-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: new gmime/gpg bug
- Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 16:20:18 +0000
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!).
] [Thread Prev