Review for Source Package: libemail-simple-perl

[Summary]
A Perl module to parse RFC2822 email headers and message format.

MIR team ACK under the constraint to resolve the below listed
required TODOs and as much as possible having a look at the
recommended TODOs.

This does need a security review, so I'll assign ubuntu-security

List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main: libemail-simple-perl
Specific binary packages built, but NOT to be promoted to main: None

Notes:
#0 I'm requesting security review, due to the package parsing random email data.

Required TODOs:
#1 libmailtools-perl looks like a potential duplicate
=> Please differentiate the two or consider if this could be used instead.

Recommended TODOs:
#2 The package should get a team bug subscriber before being promoted
#3 Upstream & Debian/Ubuntu update history is sporadic
=> Maybe we can do a better job of at least packaging new versions in a timely
   manner, once this is in main. There are not too frequent releases upstream.

[Duplication]
$ rmadison -c main -s mantic {libmailtools-perl,libemail-address-perl,libcourriel-perl,libmail-rfc822-address-perl}
 libmailtools-perl | 2.21-2 | mantic | source, all

Problems:
- libmailtools-perl looks like a potential duplicate, could you please differentiate the two or consider if this could be used instead?

[Dependencies]
OK:
- no other Dependencies to MIR due to this
  - SRCPKG checked with `check-mir`
  - all dependencies can be found in `seeded-in-ubuntu` (already in main)
  - none of the (potentially auto-generated) dependencies (Depends
    and Recommends) that are present after build are not in main
- no -dev/-debug/-doc packages that need exclusion
- No dependencies in main that are only superficially tested requiring
  more tests now.

Problems: None

[Embedded sources and static linking]
OK:
- no embedded source present
- no static linking
- does not have unexpected Built-Using entries
- not a go package, no extra constraints to consider in that regard
- not a rust package, no extra constraints to consider in that regard

Problems: None

[Security]
OK:
- history of CVEs does not look concerning
- does not run a daemon as root
- does not use webkit1,2
- does not use lib*v8 directly
- does not expose any external endpoint (port/socket/... or similar)
- does not use centralized online accounts
- does not integrate arbitrary javascript into the desktop
- does not deal with system authentication (eg, pam), etc)
- does not deal with security attestation (secure boot, tpm, signatures)
- does not deal with cryptography (en-/decryption, certificates, signing, ...)

Problems:
- does not parse data formats (emails, headers, RFC2822) from an untrusted source.
- does not process arbitrary web content (can emails be considered as such?)

[Common blockers]
OK:
- does not FTBFS currently
- does have a test suite that runs at build time
  - test suite fails will fail the build upon error.
- does have a non-trivial test suite that runs as autopkgtest
- This does not need special HW for build or test
- no new python2 dependency
- Not a Python package
- Not a Go package

Problems: None

[Packaging red flags]
OK:
- Ubuntu does not carry a delta
- symbols tracking not applicable for this kind of code.
- debian/watch is present and looks ok (if needed, e.g. non-native)
- the current release is packaged
- promoting this does not seem to cause issues for MOTUs that so far
  maintained the package
- no massive Lintian warnings
- debian/rules is rather clean
- It is not on the lto-disabled list

Problems:
- Upstream update history is sporadic
- Debian/Ubuntu update history is sporadic

[Upstream red flags]
OK:
- no Errors/warnings during the build
- no incautious use of malloc/sprintf (the language has no direct MM)
- no use of sudo, gksu, pkexec, or LD_LIBRARY_PATH (usage is OK inside tests)
- no use of user nobody
- no use of setuid / setgid
- no important open bugs (crashers, etc) in Debian or Ubuntu
- no dependency on webkit, qtwebkit, seed or libgoa-*
- not part of the UI for extra checks
- no translation present, but none needed for this case (user visible)?

Problems: None