On Thu 2015-01-15 05:20:47 -0500, David Bremner wrote:
> It seems no very recent system has gmime2.4. I guess several of these
> gmime2.4 only code paths are both security critical (e.g. in crypto.c)
> and mostly untested.
>
> Is there good reason to keep supporting gmime 2.4?
gmime 2.6 is availab
On Thu, Jan 15 2015, David Bremner wrote:
> It seems no very recent system has gmime2.4. I guess several of these
> gmime2.4 only code paths are both security critical (e.g. in crypto.c)
> and mostly untested.
>
> Is there good reason to keep supporting gmime 2.4?
if there are potential security
On Thu 2015-01-15 05:20:47 -0500, David Bremner wrote:
> It seems no very recent system has gmime2.4. I guess several of these
> gmime2.4 only code paths are both security critical (e.g. in crypto.c)
> and mostly untested.
>
> Is there good reason to keep supporting gmime 2.4?
gmime 2.6 is availab
It seems no very recent system has gmime2.4. I guess several of these
gmime2.4 only code paths are both security critical (e.g. in crypto.c)
and mostly untested.
Is there good reason to keep supporting gmime 2.4?
d
On Thu, Jan 15 2015, David Bremner wrote:
> It seems no very recent system has gmime2.4. I guess several of these
> gmime2.4 only code paths are both security critical (e.g. in crypto.c)
> and mostly untested.
>
> Is there good reason to keep supporting gmime 2.4?
if there are potential security
It seems no very recent system has gmime2.4. I guess several of these
gmime2.4 only code paths are both security critical (e.g. in crypto.c)
and mostly untested.
Is there good reason to keep supporting gmime 2.4?
d
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notm
