Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 6 Mar 2010 17:33:53 +1100 (EST)
From:      Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>
To:        Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, "Randal L. Schwartz" <merlyn@stonehenge.com>
Subject:   Re: Thousands of ssh probes
Message-ID:  <20100306172517.Q17960@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
In-Reply-To: <20100305185135.DD214106576C@hub.freebsd.org>
References:  <20100305185135.DD214106576C@hub.freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 300, Issue 10, Message: 6
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:07:29 +0000 Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
 > On 05/03/2010 15:51:52, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
 > > The spamtrap is a shiny object for spam, and anything that goes there gets
 > > blocked for an hour from hitting the low port.  I presented this at a
 > > conference once.
 > 
 > Having an IPv6-only high-mx seems to terminally confuse most spambots...

I understand why IPv6 would confuse them, but don't follow why higher 
numbered MXs would be more attractive to them in the first place?

Are they assuming a 'secondary' MX will be more likely to accept spam?

cheers, Ian



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100306172517.Q17960>