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: On 29/01/2015 8:43 a.m., Markus wrote: > Hi Amos, > > I never
heard about squid Negotiate being non standard. Can you point > me to the
reference please ? > The header syntax is defined in RFC 2617
(<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2617#section-3.2.3>)
[...]
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 ---
On 29/01/2015 8:43 a.m., Markus wrote:
> Hi Amos,
>
> I never heard about squid Negotiate being non standard. Can you point
> me to the reference please ?
>
The header syntax is defined in RFC 2617
(<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2617#section-3.2.3>)
Julian Reschke has a new draft out for clarifying the syntax whih makes
it plainy obvious as " key=value [ ',' key=value ]* " :
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reschke-httpauth-auth-info-00>
... by comparison Squid just dumps "Negotiate " then base64 token into
the header like it was using WWW-/Proxy-Authenticate syntax.
Amos
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
squid-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
