@varx @rodolforg no, plus horribly inefficient. But also, most of this spam wasn't to "mentioned only" audience, but was actually publicly posted, just at mentioning or replying to an account.
Discussion
Loading...
@thisismissem @varx checking display name (including unicode codepoint aliases and the invisible ones) and profile photo would help a lot, I believe
@rodolforg @varx and how do you "check" the profile photo? Are we going to run them through PDQ or PhotoDNA?
Sure, we could keyword match in display names for a list of words, but then you'd flag "Ivory for Mastodon" for example, if "Mastodon" was on the keywords, even though that's not a spam attempt.
@rodolforg @thisismissem probably, im assuming pairing that with any patterns they can find in the PII is why @thisismissem is asking for that data. Categorizing spam by content though is such a cat-and-mouse game.
I just discovered the idea of proof-of-work stamps to help curtail spam in #reticulum so Im in the "everything is a nail" phase of hyper-focus. To her point though, you *maybe* could require that for "DMs" but it would be totally unreasonable for all public posts.
bonfire.cafe
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
Automatic federation enabled