SA rules. Sometimes not applied?
Posted: 25 Apr 2008, 05:13
Sometimes I receive spam emails with extremely obvious keywords both in header and the body, with no obfuscation or anything. For example I just received this:
(Sorry for the language)
Subject: Bisexual Boys On Bed Jerking Off Hardcore
Body: Dark Haired Teen Interracial Gives Head Hardcore
And here is the SA rules involved:
I mean come on! How obvious it can be. Do I really need to define a custom rule for this obvious adult spam?
Altough SA filters most of the spam, sometimes obvious spam mails passed like this one. Anyone else expreiencing this?
(Sorry for the language)
Subject: Bisexual Boys On Bed Jerking Off Hardcore
Body: Dark Haired Teen Interracial Gives Head Hardcore
And here is the SA rules involved:
And mind you that I raised the DOS_OE_TO_MX and BAYES_99 score significantly, but still it has only spam score of 14 (with default scores it would be somewhere like 6-8)spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=14.405, required 9, BAYES_99 5.50, DOS_OE_TO_MX 7.00, JM_REACTOR_MAILER 1.00, RCVD_IN_PBL 0.91)
I mean come on! How obvious it can be. Do I really need to define a custom rule for this obvious adult spam?
Altough SA filters most of the spam, sometimes obvious spam mails passed like this one. Anyone else expreiencing this?