From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Mar  6 06:33:58 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A66106564A
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Sat,  6 Mar 2010 06:33:58 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au)
Received: from sola.nimnet.asn.au (paqi.nimnet.asn.au [115.70.110.159])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F1798FC15
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Sat,  6 Mar 2010 06:33:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sola.nimnet.asn.au (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o266XrPr053953;
	Sat, 6 Mar 2010 17:33:55 +1100 (EST)
	(envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au)
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>
In-Reply-To: <20100305185135.DD214106576C@hub.freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20100306172517.Q17960@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
References: <20100305185135.DD214106576C@hub.freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, "Randal L. Schwartz" <merlyn@stonehenge.com>
Subject: Re: Thousands of ssh probes
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 06:33:58 -0000

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