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 available in squeeze-backports, which is about as old as
anyone can reasonably expect to run an end-user system these days in my
book.  I have no objection to dropping gmime 2.4 support.

       --dkg