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>