minor list changes

[Eric Smith]

I wrote:
> I don't see how it "spreads the load" or how the spammer benefits
> in any way.  The spammer wants to get the spam to as many valid
> email addresses as possible, but sending to the backup MX doesn't
> get it to more valid email addresses, and it doesn't reduce the
> load on the spammer's sending machine.

John wrote:
> Were they talking about relaying and authenticating senders, or
> about sending to a user at the MX[n] host?

Talking about spamming software that ignores the MX precedence and
sends to backup MX hosts even though the primary is online.  I said
that I wasn't sure if that was deliberate or just sloppy.  I can't
see any reason for it to be deliberate, unless it's intentionally
malicious.

Eric