Subject: Re: bug#40951: Weird highlighting

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 13:19:49 +0200

Kévin Le Gouguec <[email-masked]> writes:

> That only covers Gnus's "writes:" though.  Spelunking in lisp/gnus for
> other verbs featured in gnus-cite-attribution-suffix, I get the
> impression that other MUAs tend to follow suit, but that might be
> wishful thinking.

Yeah, the "says:" stuff can be anything, really.  

> Assuming false negatives (failing to highlight) on articles from
> "non-conforming" MUAs are less annoying than false positives
> (highlighting part of a line that's not introducing a citation) on
> "conforming" ones, I'm still not sure where the right "fix" would
> belong.

Both are pretty annoying, but I don't think there's realistically any
way to fix this to be better than it is.  Some AI analysis would be
handy.  :-)

So I'm closing this bug report.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no