GNU bug report logs - #40951
Weird highlighting

Previous Next

Full log

Message #8 received at 40951 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Kévin Le Gouguec <kevin.legouguec <at> gmail.com>
To: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org>
Cc: 40951 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#40951: Weird highlighting
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 09:44:56 +0200

積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jidanni <at> jidanni.org> writes:

> Why does the
> taking...:
> line get different color (bad)
> but the
> A couple...:
> line not? (good).
> [pipe to procmail:]
>
> From: Martin Ward <martin <at> gkc.org.uk>
> 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.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.