Subject: Re: bug#40951: Weird highlighting

From: Kévin Le Gouguec <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 09:44:56 +0200

積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <[email-masked]> writes:

> Why does the
> taking...:
> line get different color (bad)
> but the
> A couple...:
> line not? (good).
> [pipe to procmail:]
>
> From: Martin Ward <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: How NASA does software testing and QA (Functionize)
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 17:05:17 +0800 (22 hours, 29 minutes, 33 seconds ago)
>
> Crumbley does not say what level NASA's software development department has
> currently reached, or what level they are aiming at nor what steps they are
> taking to reach the desired level. Instead he says:
>
> No such bug when viewed in mutt.
>
> Gnus v5.13

I'd blame gnus-cite-attribution-suffix.  Try setting it to a regexp that
doesn't match "says:", then redisplay the article with 'g'.

That sounds like a tricky bug to fix.  On the one hand, I've seen many
false positives (i.e. lines highlighted because someone writes e.g. "the
manual/docstring/comment says:"), on the other hand I don't see how Gnus
could distinguish between a verb added deliberately by the article
author, and the same verb added automatically as part of the mail
client's citation boilerplate.