Spam detection software, running on the system "master.squid-cache.org",
has identified this incoming email as possible 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: Hi Markus and everyone, The HTTPbis WG over at IETF has
brought
up the topic of (Proxy-)Authentication-Info headers usage and syntax. I
recall
Squid uses it for Negotiate in non-standard ways, and see that our use
actually
violates what little syntax definition does exist. But not the why of it.
[...]
Content analysis details: (6.5 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
1.6 RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT RBL: No description available.
[121.98.154.105 listed in bb.barracudacentral.org]
3.6 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL
[121.98.154.105 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
0.9 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail)
[SPF failed: Please see
http://www.openspf.org/Why?s=mfrom;id=squid3%40treenet.co.nz;ip=121.98.154.105;r=master.squid-cache.org]
0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines
0.4 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with
dynamic-looking rDNS
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Markus and everyone,
The HTTPbis WG over at IETF has brought up the topic of
(Proxy-)Authentication-Info headers usage and syntax.
I recall Squid uses it for Negotiate in non-standard ways, and see that
our use actually violates what little syntax definition does exist. But
not the why of it.
Do anyone know why it is being emitted by Squid at all?
And are there any known clients out there using it?
(ie can we drop or change to a compliant form without trouble?)
Amos
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
squid-dev mailing list
squid-dev@lists.squid-cache.org
http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
