From unknown Mon Jun 23 11:23:57 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#16158 <16158@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#16158 <16158@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: psyntax: bug in bound-identifier=? Reply-To: bug#16158 <16158@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 18:23:57 +0000 retitle 16158 psyntax: bug in bound-identifier=3D? reassign 16158 guile submitter 16158 Mark H Weaver severity 16158 normal tag 16158 notabug thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Dec 15 19:06:04 2013 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Dec 2013 00:06:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52349 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VsLhD-0005hg-SG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:06:04 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59095) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VsLh7-0005hB-Tx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:05:59 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VsLgy-0003E0-34 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:05:57 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:46540) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VsLgx-0003Dw-W3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:05:48 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60788) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VsLgq-0008G1-Kp for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:05:47 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VsLgj-0003Bw-Bi for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:05:40 -0500 Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:48999) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VsLgj-0003Bq-1J for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:05:33 -0500 Received: from 209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.91.212] helo=yeeloong) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VsLgc-0005E0-Hh; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:05:26 -0500 From: Mark H Weaver To: bug-guile@gnu.org Subject: psyntax: bug in bound-identifier=? Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:04:04 -0500 Message-ID: <87bo0hfyq3.fsf@netris.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) While reading psyntax.scm, I noticed that the definition of 'bound-id=?' does not match the definition in "Syntax Abstraction in Scheme" by Dybvig, Hieb, and Bruggeman. The paper states "Two identifiers that are bound-identifier=? are also free-identifier=?". The following expression shows that this is not the case in Guile 2.0: (let* ((x 1) (s1 #'x) (x 2) (s2 #'x)) (list (bound-identifier=? s1 s2) (free-identifier=? s1 s2))) => (#t #f) Racket reports (#f #f) for the same expression. According to the paper, two identifiers are 'bound-id=?' if and only if they resolve to the same binding name (gensym) and have the same marks (i.e. they were both introduced by the same macro instantiation, or neither were introduced by a macro). However, the implementation in 'psyntax.scm' does not compare the binding names (gensyms); it instead compares only the symbolic names. Mark From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Dec 15 19:12:47 2013 Received: (at 16158) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Dec 2013 00:12:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52362 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VsLni-0005s2-V3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:12:47 -0500 Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:48362) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VsLnf-0005rt-Cb for 16158@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:12:43 -0500 Received: from 209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.91.212] helo=yeeloong) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VsLnZ-0005G0-GB; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:12:37 -0500 From: Mark H Weaver To: 16158@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#16158: psyntax: bug in bound-identifier=? References: <87bo0hfyq3.fsf@netris.org> Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:11:16 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87bo0hfyq3.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:04:04 -0500") Message-ID: <877gb5fye3.fsf@netris.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 16158 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Fixed in stable-2.0, commit 70c74b847680d3b239e591afa2e99c51a712980c Mark From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Dec 15 20:05:59 2013 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Dec 2013 01:05:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52463 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VsMdD-0007FY-71 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:05:59 -0500 Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:48386) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VsMdA-0007FP-LM for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:05:57 -0500 Received: from 209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.91.212] helo=yeeloong) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VsMd4-0005Mi-FG; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:05:50 -0500 From: Mark H Weaver To: control@debbugs.gnu.org Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:04:26 -0500 Message-ID: <8738ltfvxh.fsf@netris.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: close 16158 thanks [...] Content analysis details: (2.0 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header 0.2 NO_SUBJECT Extra score for no subject X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: close 16158 thanks [...] Content analysis details: (2.0 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header 0.2 NO_SUBJECT Extra score for no subject close 16158 thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Dec 16 02:49:43 2013 Received: (at 16158) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Dec 2013 07:49:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52859 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VsSvt-00035j-L4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 02:49:42 -0500 Received: from relay-pt2.poste.it ([62.241.5.253]:42285) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VsSvo-00035V-RV for 16158@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 02:49:38 -0500 Received: from governatore.luna (93.144.58.231) by relay-pt2.poste.it (8.5.142) (authenticated as marco.maggi-ipsu@poste.it) id 000000000088B902; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 08:49:32 +0100 References: <87bo0hfyq3.fsf@netris.org> Original-Sender: marco.maggi-ipsu@poste.it To: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: bug#16158: psyntax: bug in bound-identifier=? From: Marco Maggi Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 08:49:34 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87bo0hfyq3.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:04:04 -0500") Message-ID: <87d2kxfd69.fsf@governatore.luna> Lines: 80 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 16158 Cc: 16158@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: marco.maggi-ipsu@poste.it List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) Mark H Weaver wrote: > While reading psyntax.scm, I noticed that the definition of 'bound-id=?' > does not match the definition in "Syntax Abstraction in Scheme" by > Dybvig, Hieb, and Bruggeman. > > The paper states "Two identifiers that are bound-identifier=? are also > free-identifier=?". I think you are referring to this paragraph from the paper[1] (page 12): Two identifiers that are bound-identifier=? are also free-identifier=?, but two identifiers that are free-identifier=? may not be bound-identifier=?. An identifier introduced by a macro transformer may refer to the same enclosing binding as an identifier not introduced by the transformer, but an introduced binding for one will not capture references to the other. > The following expression shows that this is not the case in Guile 2.0: > > (let* ((x 1) (s1 #'x) > (x 2) (s2 #'x)) > (list (bound-identifier=? s1 s2) > (free-identifier=? s1 s2))) > => (#t #f) The expander in Ikarus/Vicare also returns this value. > Racket reports (#f #f) for the same expression. Racket is different because its expander implements a variant of phase separation; if the whole form is evaluated at phase N, the "x" in "#'x" should be searched among the bindings at phase N-1 (if any) (I am not authoritative in how Racket works, there is always something that escapes me). Your code works, but when you actually try to use the identifiers for something: #!r6rs (import (rnrs)) (define-syntax doit (lambda (stx) (let* ((x 1) (s1 #'x) (x 2) (s2 #'x)) #`(let ((#,s1 123)) #,s2)))) (doit) $ plt-r6rs ~/var/tmp/proof.sps /home/marco/var/tmp/proof.sps:7:23: x: identifier used out of context in: x context...: /opt/racket/5.3.5/lib/racket/collects/r6rs/run.rkt: [running body] while the same program works fine in Ikarus, Vicare, Sagittarius and Guile (Larceny's opinion would be interesting, but I do not have it installed). IMHO this program should work for Racket, too, but maybe it refuses to run code that "looks wrong" (indeed, usually, in a correct program we do not define identifiers this way). I dunno how Guile's evolution of psyntax works, but the two #'x must be bound-identifier=? because the following result must stand: (define-syntax doit (lambda (stx) (let* ((x 1) (s1 #'x) (x 2) (s2 #'x)) #`(let ((#,s1 123)) #,s2)))) (doit) => 123 IMHO it is an error in the paper. Some paragraphs from the paper preceding "the one" have been recycled in the R6RS document, but this one paragraph has not; maybe this means something. HTH [1] -- "Now feel the funk blast!" Rage Against the Machine - "Calm like a bomb" From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Dec 16 11:40:29 2013 Received: (at 16158) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Dec 2013 16:40:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54137 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VsbDZ-0003BY-48 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:40:29 -0500 Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:49011) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VsbDW-0003BO-8m for 16158@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:40:27 -0500 Received: from 209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.91.212] helo=yeeloong) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VsbDO-0007BP-4I; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:40:18 -0500 From: Mark H Weaver To: marco.maggi-ipsu@poste.it Subject: Re: bug#16158: psyntax: bug in bound-identifier=? References: <87bo0hfyq3.fsf@netris.org> <87d2kxfd69.fsf@governatore.luna> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:38:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87d2kxfd69.fsf@governatore.luna> (Marco Maggi's message of "Mon, 16 Dec 2013 08:49:34 +0100") Message-ID: <87y53keoo0.fsf@netris.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 16158 Cc: 16158@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Hi, Marco Maggi writes: > Mark H Weaver wrote: >> While reading psyntax.scm, I noticed that the definition of 'bound-id=?' >> does not match the definition in "Syntax Abstraction in Scheme" by >> Dybvig, Hieb, and Bruggeman. >> >> The paper states "Two identifiers that are bound-identifier=? are also >> free-identifier=?". > > I think you are referring to this paragraph from the paper[1] (page 12): > > Two identifiers that are bound-identifier=? are also > free-identifier=?, but two identifiers that are free-identifier=? > may not be bound-identifier=?. An identifier introduced by a macro > transformer may refer to the same enclosing binding as an identifier > not introduced by the transformer, but an introduced binding for one > will not capture references to the other. Yes. >> The following expression shows that this is not the case in Guile 2.0: >> >> (let* ((x 1) (s1 #'x) >> (x 2) (s2 #'x)) >> (list (bound-identifier=? s1 s2) >> (free-identifier=? s1 s2))) >> => (#t #f) > > The expander in Ikarus/Vicare also returns this value. I think that indicates a bug in Ikarus/Vicare. >> Racket reports (#f #f) for the same expression. > > Racket is different because its expander implements a variant of phase > separation; if the whole form is evaluated at phase N, the "x" in "#'x" > should be searched among the bindings at phase N-1 (if any) I don't see how that's relevant to this example. > Your code works, but when you actually try to use the > identifiers for something: > > #!r6rs > (import (rnrs)) > (define-syntax doit > (lambda (stx) > (let* ((x 1) (s1 #'x) > (x 2) (s2 #'x)) > #`(let ((#,s1 123)) > #,s2)))) > (doit) Whether #`(let ((#,s1 123)) #,s2) works is equivalent to asking whether s1 and s2 are 'bound-identifier=?', by definition. That's precisely what 'bound-identifier=?' is supposed to be used for: to determine whether a binding for one should capture the other. I don't see why you think #`(let ((#,s1 123)) #,s2) should work. Why would you use two identifiers with different binding names (s1 and s2) to construct that code? Can you construct a more realistic example? Thanks, Mark From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Dec 16 23:05:24 2013 Received: (at 16158) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Dec 2013 04:05:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54807 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VsluO-0000al-3H for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:05:24 -0500 Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:49455) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VsluK-0000ab-AK for 16158@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:05:21 -0500 Received: from 209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.91.212] helo=yeeloong) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VsluD-0000GJ-7r; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:05:13 -0500 From: Mark H Weaver To: marco.maggi-ipsu@poste.it Subject: Re: bug#16158: psyntax: bug in bound-identifier=? References: <87bo0hfyq3.fsf@netris.org> <87d2kxfd69.fsf@governatore.luna> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:03:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87d2kxfd69.fsf@governatore.luna> (Marco Maggi's message of "Mon, 16 Dec 2013 08:49:34 +0100") Message-ID: <87txe8dsyf.fsf@netris.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 16158 Cc: 16158@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Marco Maggi writes: > IMHO it is an error in the paper. Some paragraphs from the paper > preceding "the one" have been recycled in the R6RS document, but this > one paragraph has not; maybe this means something. Interesting. I looked closer, and found this in the R6RS definition of 'bound-identifier=3D?': Operationally, two identifiers are considered equivalent by bound-identifier=3D? if and only if they have the same name and same marks (section 12.1). I also found this in the R6RS errata: =C2=A7 12.1 The remark "An algebra that defines how marks and substitutions work more precisely is given in section~2.4 of Oscar Waddell's PhD thesis." is somewhat misleading and should be qualified as follows: "Note, however, that Waddell's thesis describes slightly different semantics for bound-identifier=3D? - it specifies that for two identifiers to be equal in the sense of bound-identifier=3D?, they must have the same marks and be equal in the sense of free-identifier=3D?, whereas this report requires instead that they must have the same marks and have the same name." I guess that Kent Dybvig changed his mind about how 'bound-identifier=3D?' should behave. I don't fully understand the issues, so I'm inclined to go along with the R6RS definition. Therefore, I've reverted 70c74b847680d3b239e591afa2e99c51a712980c. Thanks, Mark From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Dec 16 23:07:52 2013 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Dec 2013 04:07:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54812 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vslwl-0000fG-Qu for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:07:52 -0500 Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:49458) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vslwj-0000f9-Rl for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:07:50 -0500 Received: from 209-6-91-212.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.91.212] helo=yeeloong) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Vslwe-0000HI-Gw; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:07:44 -0500 From: Mark H Weaver To: control@debbugs.gnu.org Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:06:20 -0500 Message-ID: <87ppowdsub.fsf@netris.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: tags 16158 notabug thanks [...] Content analysis details: (2.0 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header 0.2 NO_SUBJECT Extra score for no subject X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: tags 16158 notabug thanks [...] Content analysis details: (2.0 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header 0.2 NO_SUBJECT Extra score for no subject tags 16158 notabug thanks From unknown Mon Jun 23 11:23:57 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:24:04 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator