From unknown Tue Aug 19 09:32:23 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#47598 <47598@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#47598 <47598@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: cperl-mode: Highlighting confused with ternary and -x Reply-To: bug#47598 <47598@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 16:32:23 +0000 retitle 47598 cperl-mode: Highlighting confused with ternary and -x reassign 47598 emacs submitter 47598 "E. Choroba" severity 47598 normal tag 47598 fixed patch thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 04 20:05:19 2021 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Apr 2021 00:05:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36652 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lTCk3-00078S-FO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 Apr 2021 20:05:19 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:41082) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lTCjz-00078H-UR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 Apr 2021 20:05:18 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33952) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lTCjz-0003F7-Q9 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Apr 2021 20:05:15 -0400 Received: from ufal-mail.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.20.158]:59010) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lTCjx-0007iL-RR for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Apr 2021 20:05:15 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ufal-mail.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9175E736CF0 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 02:05:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ufal-mail.mff.cuni.cz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ufal-mail.mff.cuni.cz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id Qq6utk0wBdcD for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 02:05:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ufal-mail.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8667C7502AD for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 02:05:06 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ufal.mff.cuni.cz Received: from ufal-mail.mff.cuni.cz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ufal-mail.mff.cuni.cz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id wVd0WnxshIjG for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 02:05:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.200] (83-101-243-80.cust.centrio.cz [80.243.101.83]) by ufal-mail.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 476B27379C2 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 02:05:06 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 02:04:56 +0200 (CEST) From: "E. Choroba" X-X-Sender: choroba@silent To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: cperl-mode: Highlighting confused with ternary and -x Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Received-SPF: none client-ip=195.113.20.158; envelope-from=choroba@matfyz.cz; helo=ufal-mail.mff.cuni.cz X-Spam_score_int: -41 X-Spam_score: -4.2 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 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: -3.3 (---) When combining the ternary operator with file tests using the default argument, cperl-mode gets confused. For example: my $f = -f ? 'file' : -l ? [readlink] : -d ? 'dir' : 'unknown'; It seems to think the ?'s are not part of a ternary operator, but rather a match-once operator. Note that m?? without m results in a syntax error since Perl 5.22. Ch. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 06 14:33:20 2021 Received: (at 47598) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Apr 2021 18:33:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41742 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lTqVs-00058S-F8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2021 14:33:20 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:38169) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lTqVo-00058B-Rx for 47598@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2021 14:33:18 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1393160061 for <47598@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 20:33:08 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1617733988; bh=n4vevaqW6BtTcQo2M/UJMLGl2hQgDvtEExLX58CdcWA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=TKIrWSUzZ3DX2UJ8UnbBf09x/gYjmxV1+Qp8y1lrrg9TAS54T0S/nIW26OcEwvZ9u L3ddTxg9Taad4VpREF8R4Pd+pK6BapOTHpsTs7udANVXoWrPl9h+DMcCa5O3dsCHaf 9c2SnYcdUuM+dlkJY/gR5ZlFJuXRbaqbee1svAq6dqvDmLGdhDsy3umJW0lQAI5EKR EB3lhGhmGbL4J3tRxFwBFKGEWvojZudoytYCLUWH7YkD7yOoI0WG3ES3UAj4kEn2XB OqWtJqb7wUi11O4FL9gPTSWR1V00axwQj1esVnwsDkyqcnxkhqovWIVMLMVNKAIb+H uiENi1iIjqHtg== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4FFGP016xYz6tmK; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 20:33:07 +0200 (CEST) From: haj@posteo.de (Harald =?utf-8?Q?J=C3=B6rg?=) To: "E. Choroba" Subject: Re: bug#47598: cperl-mode: Highlighting confused with ternary and -x [PATCH] In-Reply-To: (E. Choroba's message of "Mon, 5 Apr 2021 02:04:56 +0200 (CEST)") References: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 20:33:07 +0200 Message-ID: <87zgyb2rh8.fsf@hajtower> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 47598 Cc: 47598@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 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: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain E. Choroba writes: > When combining the ternary operator with file tests using the default > argument, cperl-mode gets confused. > > For example: > > my $f = -f ? 'file' > : -l ? [readlink] > : -d ? 'dir' > : 'unknown'; > > It seems to think the ?'s are not part of a ternary operator, but > rather a match-once operator. ... Exactly, that is what is happening here. > ... Note that m?? without m results in a > syntax error since Perl 5.22. Because of that it seems appropriate to stop dealing with bare ?foo? altogether. So, the patch eliminates the recognition of bare ?foo?, and also deletes the corresponding lines from CPerl's builtin short documentation. The test in the patch uses the text from the bug report, and also checks that m?foo? is still processed as a regular expression, and a bare ?foo? isn't. -- Cheers, haj --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-diff Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=0001-cperl-mode-Eliminate-bad-interpretation-of-foo-bug-4.patch Content-Description: Don't support ?foo? >From 3e9b727d2b7215ca73bc9334bf5b904916640055 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Harald=20J=C3=B6rg?= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 20:21:25 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] ; cperl-mode: Eliminate bad interpretation of ?foo? (bug#47598) * lisp/progmodes/cperl-mode.el (cperl-find-pods-heres): Delete ?? from the allowed bare regexp delimiters. (cperl-short-docs): Delete ?...? from the documentation. * test/lisp/progmodes/cperl-mode-tests.el (cperl-bug-47598): Add tests for good, bad, and ambiguous use of ? as regex delimiter. --- lisp/progmodes/cperl-mode.el | 16 ++++++--------- test/lisp/progmodes/cperl-mode-tests.el | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/lisp/progmodes/cperl-mode.el b/lisp/progmodes/cperl-mode.el index 7878e91096..d58b126ae9 100644 --- a/lisp/progmodes/cperl-mode.el +++ b/lisp/progmodes/cperl-mode.el @@ -3585,7 +3585,7 @@ cperl-find-pods-heres "\\<\\(q[wxqr]?\\|[msy]\\|tr\\)\\>" ; QUOTED CONSTRUCT "\\|" ;; 1+6+2+1=10 extra () before this: - "\\([?/<]\\)" ; /blah/ or ?blah? or + "\\([/<]\\)" ; /blah/ or "\\|" ;; 1+6+2+1+1=11 extra () before this "\\<" cperl-sub-regexp "\\>" ; sub with proto/attr @@ -3920,7 +3920,7 @@ cperl-find-pods-heres ;; 1+6+2=9 extra () before this: ;; "\\<\\(q[wxqr]?\\|[msy]\\|tr\\)\\>" ;; "\\|" - ;; "\\([?/<]\\)" ; /blah/ or ?blah? or + ;; "\\([/<]\\)" ; /blah/ or (setq b1 (if (match-beginning 10) 10 11) argument (buffer-substring (match-beginning b1) (match-end b1)) @@ -3958,7 +3958,7 @@ cperl-find-pods-heres (goto-char (match-beginning b1)) (cperl-backward-to-noncomment (point-min)) (or bb - (if (eq b1 11) ; bare /blah/ or ?blah? or + (if (eq b1 11) ; bare /blah/ or (setq argument "" b1 nil bb ; Not a regexp? @@ -3966,7 +3966,7 @@ cperl-find-pods-heres ;; What is below: regexp-p? (and (or (memq (preceding-char) - (append (if (memq c '(?\? ?\<)) + (append (if (char-equal c ?\<) ;; $a++ ? 1 : 2 "~{(=|&*!,;:[" "~{(=|&+-*!,;:[") nil)) @@ -3977,14 +3977,11 @@ cperl-find-pods-heres (forward-sexp -1) ;; After these keywords `/' starts a RE. One should add all the ;; functions/builtins which expect an argument, but ... - (if (eq (preceding-char) ?-) - ;; -d ?foo? is a RE - (looking-at "[a-zA-Z]\\>") (and (not (memq (preceding-char) '(?$ ?@ ?& ?%))) (looking-at - "\\(while\\|if\\|unless\\|until\\|and\\|or\\|not\\|xor\\|split\\|grep\\|map\\|print\\|say\\|return\\)\\>"))))) + "\\(while\\|if\\|unless\\|until\\|and\\|or\\|not\\|xor\\|split\\|grep\\|map\\|print\\|say\\|return\\)\\>")))) (and (eq (preceding-char) ?.) (eq (char-after (- (point) 2)) ?.)) (bobp)) @@ -7232,8 +7229,7 @@ cperl-short-docs ... >= ... Numeric greater than or equal to. ... >> ... Bitwise shift right. ... >>= ... Bitwise shift right assignment. -... ? ... : ... Condition=if-then-else operator. ?PAT? One-time pattern match. -?PATTERN? One-time pattern match. +... ? ... : ... Condition=if-then-else operator. @ARGV Command line arguments (not including the command name - see $0). @INC List of places to look for perl scripts during do/include/use. @_ Parameter array for subroutines; result of split() unless in list context. diff --git a/test/lisp/progmodes/cperl-mode-tests.el b/test/lisp/progmodes/cperl-mode-tests.el index 14bc48b92f..1b3a816d87 100644 --- a/test/lisp/progmodes/cperl-mode-tests.el +++ b/test/lisp/progmodes/cperl-mode-tests.el @@ -495,4 +495,31 @@ cperl-test-bug-47112 'font-lock-constant-face font-lock-string-face)))))) +(ert-deftest cperl-test-bug-47598 () + "Check that a file test followed by ? is no longer interpreted +as a regex." + ;; Testing the text from the bug report + (with-temp-buffer + (insert "my $f = -f ? 'file'\n") + (insert " : -l ? [readlink]\n") + (insert " : -d ? 'dir'\n") + (insert " : 'unknown';\n") + (funcall cperl-test-mode) + ;; Perl mode doesn't highlight file tests as functions, so we + ;; can't test for the function's face. But we can verify that the + ;; function is not a string. + (goto-char (point-min)) + (search-forward "?") + (should-not (nth 3 (syntax-ppss (point))))) + ;; Testing the actual targets for the regexp: m?foo? (still valid) + ;; and ?foo? (invalid since Perl 5.22) + (with-temp-buffer + (insert "m?foo?;") + (funcall cperl-test-mode) + (should (nth 3 (syntax-ppss 3)))) + (with-temp-buffer + (insert " ?foo?;") + (funcall cperl-test-mode) + (should-not (nth 3 (syntax-ppss 3))))) + ;;; cperl-mode-tests.el ends here -- 2.20.1 --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 09 06:05:26 2021 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Apr 2021 10:05:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49133 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lUo0z-0005La-F9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 06:05:26 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:35237) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lUo0u-0005LF-7X for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 06:05:24 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74F542400FD for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 12:05:13 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1617962713; bh=lVDvI4ghfB1pgAfFgONOfxbVO7pdB0Kka5e8aa+HjWY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=XLfgFPMnWoDBGJLHel6udHeLBhsXgBKvft1dnVTILG/KWVe9yq+HySuB2FSgcv62F 7u13MD5B/6QZSoeN/C66docmptPEfBz+3Lvd7T5YRVqU5H/+XIvXc0hCQ+WUY638MA SsTFFAFALcorRhBIuqQbkUcX9QTBWzOMl9tdXWrRSsZH7lXKVefYPl+sANoKMrpnLL XJXOADRXHYn7rNYDspO6O+Naq1RlvuUGKEwAVSjIUsN6hzU5Rlhd206LnoFQTcZYKF 2e2LA2bQPC0auPwUmT8NieMlmj+UGSaTRGMDJlC9WQA+s3kmmJv5AeFGtrUjnwD+U6 2/s6M1CNdqWJg== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4FGtzX5WQwz6tmX for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 12:05:12 +0200 (CEST) From: haj@posteo.de (Harald =?utf-8?Q?J=C3=B6rg?=) To: control@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Tag #47598 with patch User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 12:05:12 +0200 Message-ID: <878s5rsrhj.fsf@hajtower> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 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: -1.7 (-) tags 47598 + patch thanks It seems that adding [PATCH] to a bug's subject doesn't automagically add the "patch" tag. The patch is attached to https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=47598#8, URL of the patch is https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?msg=8;bug=47598;filename=0001-cperl-mode-Eliminate-bad-interpretation-of-foo-bug-4.patch;att=1 Well, perhaps this isn't read at all, but including the info doesn't hurt. -- Cheers, haj From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu May 06 06:34:12 2021 Received: (at 47598) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 May 2021 10:34:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37299 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lebKd-0000Iy-R0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 May 2021 06:34:12 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:46974) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lebKb-0000Is-Ht for 47598@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 May 2021 06:34:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID :In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=vicolWtf+p1ucpE7c6VS6OjWaYeHxbqgHD/x23MSHJs=; b=O2344w3RXb9I3h/TjM79PcC412 JTLq0uuuZAMeq/J9YZftpfnNnf1kHoxN8pq3GevLf1KDJr7ggBLj661XByHjnBxI/w7F5wIwPilSH g+2VU0KxewDag0wN9XsN0yNi23eGsSNutNRVlIytHS53ck0MDTODcPqeSSsQXG/OaHDc=; Received: from cm-84.212.220.105.getinternet.no ([84.212.220.105] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lebKT-00065E-9n; Thu, 06 May 2021 12:34:03 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: haj@posteo.de (Harald =?utf-8?Q?J=C3=B6rg?=) Subject: Re: bug#47598: cperl-mode: Highlighting confused with ternary and -x References: <87zgyb2rh8.fsf@hajtower> X-Now-Playing: Nico's _Do Or Die_: "Abschied" Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 12:34:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87zgyb2rh8.fsf@hajtower> ("Harald =?utf-8?Q?J=C3=B6rg=22's?= message of "Tue, 06 Apr 2021 20:33:07 +0200") Message-ID: <87tungw3qf.fsf_-_@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: haj@posteo.de (Harald Jörg) writes: > Because of that it seems appropriate to stop dealing with bare ?foo? > altogether. So, the patch eliminates the recognition of bare ?foo?, and > also deletes the corresponding lines from CPerl's bui [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 47598 Cc: 47598@debbugs.gnu.org, "E. Choroba" X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 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: -1.0 (-) haj@posteo.de (Harald J=C3=B6rg) writes: > Because of that it seems appropriate to stop dealing with bare ?foo? > altogether. So, the patch eliminates the recognition of bare ?foo?, and > also deletes the corresponding lines from CPerl's builtin short > documentation. The test in the patch uses the text from the bug report, > and also checks that m?foo? is still processed as a regular expression, > and a bare ?foo? isn't. Thanks; applied to Emacs 28. --=20 (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu May 06 06:35:28 2021 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 May 2021 10:35:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37303 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lebLs-0000Jv-4h for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 May 2021 06:35:28 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:47080) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lebLp-0000Jp-Ts for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 May 2021 06:35:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Subject:From:To:Message-Id:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=fLNrOu+wIvi8F9iJdhiGolhKBnU54tvTRt9MZSpkmSk=; b=VAdW26UK4JFKOeseXqAlomM1PU BWCZdaj96zjhf4U2Q1vvAHDme+oAVNR91mT47LWDJS08slC3a6VLSalBHZA0IYerGtAL0/QrR14Uz 6T+/CcUNDnKogo88DYUJad+iY9y3fiLwykvhQpi80/iR3c9hOhLJ8MrA4rgq8szCM3/Q=; Received: from cm-84.212.220.105.getinternet.no ([84.212.220.105] helo=xo) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lebLi-00065u-Fp for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 May 2021 12:35:20 +0200 Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 12:35:18 +0200 Message-Id: <87o8dow3o9.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #47598 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: tags 47598 fixed close 47598 28.1 quit Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 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: -1.0 (-) tags 47598 fixed close 47598 28.1 quit From unknown Tue Aug 19 09:32:23 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 11:24:12 +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