Defining an account as suspicious when it has no local followers can be circumvented by just pre-following them, using account age can be circumvented with sleeper accounts, blacklisting URLs does nothing when the spam does not include URLs, checking for duplicate messages sent to different recipients can be circumvented by randomizing parts of the message...
E-mail deals with spam using Bayesian filters or machine learning. The more training data there is, the more accurate the results, a monolith like GMail benefits from this greatly. Mastodon's decentralization means everyone has separate training data, and starts from scratch, which means high inaccuracy. It also means someone spamming a username could potentially lead to any mention of that username be considered spam due to the low overall volume of data, unless you strip usernames
@Gargron my idea for spam is that you simply, do not allow it
@Gargron please send payment to hell dude at radical dot town
@gargron How does email, by and large, deal with it?
The "batteries not included" way of doing it is carefully crafted regular expressions. Its labour-intensive, but the quality of filtering is usually better. The blackbox, set-and-forget method usually involves bayesian filters or similar machine learning do classify spam and ham. The trouble is, accurate detection gets difficult for messages as short as microblogging messages, compared to email.
@rechner what would any of these regexes be? Just so that I can get a sense of what could be matched by it. Also: would you have one list per language?
@amenthes Spamassasin has rulefiles consisting of a regex, a description, and a score to assign if that match is found. If enough of the rules get the score to above a threshold, the message is classified as spam: http://johnbokma.com/spam/spamassassin-cookbook.html
Email has the advantage of usually having plenty of metadata to couple with message classifiers to cut down on spam, which makes adapting it to blogging platforms more difficult
@Mainebot Massive and in-depth response.
IP reputation (Senderbase, Ironport, Spamhaus, RBLs), residential DUL bluck, SPF, Bayesian filters, large-scale realtime trend tracking, malware filtering, keyword matching (spamassassin), whitelists, milters, rate-limiting, trusted senders, realtime spam-reporting.
@Mainebot Also DKIM. I knew I was forgetting one.
Both DKIM and SPF address identity spoofingby way of increasing email header robustness.
@Mainebot Wikipedia's email anti-spam measures article is comprehensive, though many methods scale poorly or are fairly ineffective.
@Gargron more verification steps. this will help.
Can you explain in a bit more detail what kind of spam you expect? And how traditional social media handle it? And what options you have already looked in to?
Mention of lately spam and mascu shitty speech
@Gargron the best anti-spam for now is
@brunoph Spam-friendly instances are actually easy and cheap to detect and block.
A small number of spammers on larger, and poorly-administered, instances is far worse.
The collateral damage of instance-level countermeasures is high. And policing a large number of NEW user signups (and monitoring for sleepers and reputation harvesting) is expensive.
@angristan Yes, correct. However, it is not a defence against all the servers that are not using it!
@Gargron and most of all it's not automated :(
well, that means whitelists or ocaps.
there is no other solution for push-based networks. email spam is just a thing we put up with. sms / phone spam is another thing that we can't really do anything about.
the only real way to *prevent* spam is to prevent unaudited and unapproved communications from being delivered to you... unfortunately. everything else is a half-measure.
- Require a cryptographic token before someone can POST a message to your inbox. (the ocap way; incompatible with the current fediverse + requires a larger transition)
- Implement a web-of-trust feature, where accounts with n>k degrees away are not trusted. (this prevents random spam by limiting interactions only to a certain degree of separation; perhaps following status = trust degree?)
@trwnh @Gargron @angristan Well, the current wave of spam that I've seen was attached to existing interactions.
Unfortunately, the Fediverse has no controls on that level - sure, I can block that account, or I can report them (and hope the remote instance cares or isn't actively hostile) - but everyone else will still get to see it when they're looking at the affected thread on their instance. So spamming currently is super effective, at least until the originating account gets deleted.
@galaxis silencing an account locally should remove its replies from public view as well. but yes, this is why whitelisting or ocaps are the only effective counter -- they prevent the spam from occurring at all.
@trwnh As I single-user instance, I have pretty good control over what appears on my instance and in its public web views. But that isn't the norm, and I still have no control over how the threads I've started look on remote instances.
@galaxis replies only federate out to that person's followers' instances (usually 0), and if you reply, then your followers' instances will fetch it (so don't reply).
aside from those two things, nothing should make it appear on other instances.
@angristan mstdn.io — only accepting new members if they can upload a video of themselves doing a backflip and then holding up a sign saying "mstdn.io 4 lyf"
check for duplicate mass messages by text matching over a period of time and if the same post happens more than x times in a row, mute the account for review and retroactively send a delete request to the duplicated posts.
@gargron you don't need a perfect match, like 80% or so, even if it's alternating messages if an account shows a match rate of some ratio over a short period of time the account is flagged
@uncletrunks Our spammer has stopped using URLs in messages. It's just text now
@Gargron Actually Discourse does some basic prevention here by having different user levels which are bound to rate-limits and the ability to post external links.
Not perfect of course, but maybe also worth to think about.
In general I guess the answer is: Small instances because that tends to increases the number of moderators per user. And hope that the community can take care of it.
@Gargron Have you looked into federating block lists? Possibly making instance wide blocks more transparent and allowing others to subscribe to them?
It's not an instant fix, but I don'teven think this problem is NP complete. There are too many variables and opinions.
I could easily see a few instances maintaining these lists and everyone else just following them.
@rune Spam comes from innocent servers where the spammer signs up. This has little to do with domain blocks.
@Gargron Can instance wide bans only target entire domains?
@rune Trust me, you don't want a globally shared account blocklist. Nobody bothers to oversee those when copying/subscribing. Your name put on there by an enemy? That might actually ruin most of the network for you.
@Gargron I suppose it could focus a lot of power if everyone followed one list.
What is the list isn't curated by individuals, but rather created from blocks happening on the instance?
Anyone getting blocked by a significant % of the population on an instance for example. Then removed from the list later.
I still like the concept of federating because the times I do see spam it's usually on another instance and I'm sure lots of people already blocked it, but I still have to block it too.
I don't think it's realistic to think there can be a technical solution to completely eliminate spam. But raising its cost, which can be done by each of these solutions, is still worthwhile because they will make spamming harder.
@lunar The events that have sparked this discussion is one dedicated person spamming the network. There is suspicious that the person is somehow keeping up with development discussions and changing tactics accordingly. Therefore, unless the solution can help against that type of spammer, it's kind of pointless. Plenty of tools against more mundane spam.
@Gargron Ok. Forcing spammers to create sleeper accounts and sleeper instances would still help reduce the rate of abuses after previous instances and accounts have been blocked. Especially if the amount of messages they can send to people they haven't interacted with before is made proportional to their age. Or am I missing something?
(We've also discussed shared blocklists already. I'm now convinced they come with a lot of problems.)
I wonder if such behavior should even be lumped in with "spam"? What you outline sounds particularly adversarial (but then again, of course all spam adapts to countermeasures)
One person gaming existing mechanisms definitely sounds more like a problem suited for (better?) moderation mechanisms to me.
Trying to combat a dedicated person with ML or regexes or anything like that sounds utterly hopeless to me.
@Gargron do what WTDWTF does
there's no secret magic to it
users require a published post to edit their profile
users with zero or negative upvotes require mod approval to post
registering an account from an IP that is already associated with an account requires admin approval
about a month into this policy the spammers completely gave up
@ben We don't have a true emergency with spammers signing-up on a given instance. Approval-only registrations mode is a good tool for weeding those out. The problem we are experiencing is the spammer signing up on random open instances and sending spam remotely. Therefore, solutions based on IPs or captchas are not appropriate. Even if we release the perfect protection against local spammers, servers that haven't upgraded will continue to make this a problem.
@Gargron @ben We need to stop thinking about handling spam going out and start thinking about spam coming in, then. My instinct here is to read individual posts on their way in and handle spam detection at that level (likely on a separate lower-priority thread/task/whatever to prevent lagging out incoming posts).
@bclindner @Gargron @ben That imposes the cost on the victim of spam, which leads to an arms race. Better to try to impose the cost on the spammer.
Perhaps allow an instance to enable a setting that says if sending instance is n versions behind, reject messages?
Zombie instances would get gradually de-federated.
@daedalus That might help as an intermediate step but currently our problem exists with no real spam filtering existing on the Mastodon system whatsoever save for some rate limiting.
I'm honestly glad nobody's set up an auto-spammer script. We might be well and truly fucked if that happens before we can implement proper spam detection systems.
@Gargron I think one important aspect that has been pointed out by @ben is that users can be asked to classify the people they follow, and this can be used to compute some kind of credibility score for the new profiles, in order to limit their activity on a timescale at which modération is effective. I don't see any automated solution, tbh.
admins are responsible for the servers they run, and if those servers are the source of a disproportionate amount of spam, it doesn't matter whether the root cause is malice or simply inactivity from the admins. the end result is the same.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!