Shouldn't this porn be flagged?

[Pat Traynor <pa...@ssih.com>]

I've just switched to a new hosting provider who has installed a fairly
standard Spamassassin for me.  It seems like a lot of spam is getting
through.  I just looked at this one:

 	Subject: Innocent Asian Babe Hairy Pussy Fucking

 	X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on ssih.com
 	X-Spam-Level: **
 	X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.3 required=4.0
 	tests=BIZ_TLD,RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL,
 	    RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL autolearn=no version=3.0.2

 	Cute Amateur Spreading Legs And Pussy
 	Asian Chick Gets Machine Fucked By Blond Lesbian
 	Babes sharing a stud
 	Nude Short Haired Amateur Fucks Doggystyle On Sofa
 	Drunk blowjob in toilet

This seems like a lot of relatively standard porn terms that haven't
been recognized.  Is this normal?  Do I have to add my own rules to
catch this sort of stuff?

--pat--
-- 
Pat Traynor
pat@ssih.com

Re: Shouldn't this porn be flagged?

[Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com>]

Pat Traynor wrote:

> 
> This seems like a lot of relatively standard porn terms that haven't
> been recognized.  Is this normal?  Do I have to add my own rules to
> catch this sort of stuff?
> 
> --pat--

Normally bayes and URIBLs deal with this stuff, but it looks like your ISP isn't
using bayes, and I can't tell if they have URIBLs on or not.

You might want to consider grabbing the porn ruleset from www.rulesemporium.com
to help out if you're not using bayes at all. Your message hit SARE_ADLTSUB2 and
SARE_ADULT2. It's not going to get all the porn, but it's helpful.