On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Markus Wiederkehr <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Markus Wiederkehr wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Markus Wiederkehr >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Here's a list of the remaining open issues: >>>>> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-34 >>>>> not sure if this one has not already been resolved; please read my >>>>> latest comment >>>>> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-58 >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-68 >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-69 >>>>> target for 0.7? >>>> >>>> I have re-targeted these for 0.7.. >>>> >>>> Markus >>>> >>> >>> As soon as there is some kind of a decision about MIME4J-34 I'll start >>> preparing the release packages. >> >> if you're happy with my resolution, then the issue can be closed > > +1 > > I think you've made a good point with #112. I also believe that > perfect reproduction of a message would be a necessity if a Mime4j DOM > should ever be used for verifying an S/MIME signature..
it's not as simple as that: SMIME (and OpenPGP/MIME) require canonicalisation and normalisation but i agree that this would be a very useful test of the API > Regarding 0.6 I think we can build a release candidate now.. once the issue has been closed, +1 - robert
