Change profile updates to be sent to recently-mentioned servers

[ClearlyClaire]

When a local account gets suspended, remote servers that have followers or who have reported the account get notified.

But in cases like today's spam wave, the suspended users typically have no followers and the affected users will not all notice and report the issue before it is dealt with. This means that large amounts of federated servers are unaware that the accounts have been dealt with (a fediverse-wide deletion notice is sent at the full deletion time, but that usually happens 30 days later).

To remedy this, extend the suspension notice delivery to recently-mentioned servers (inboxes for users mentioned in the last 2 days, for up to 200 different posts).

This change also applies to regular profile updates, but I am not completely sure this is a good idea.

[ThisIsMissEm]

This seems reasonable to me, and would only result in, at maximum 200 additional accounts in this set.

[ClearlyClaire]

This seems reasonable to me, and would only result in, at maximum 200 additional accounts in this set.

No, it could be many more, as it's 200 posts, and those posts could mention many users.

[ThisIsMissEm]

This seems reasonable to me, and would only result in, at maximum 200 additional accounts in this set.

No, it could be many more, as it's 200 posts, and those posts could mention many users.

oh right! Maybe it's a little high at 200 posts then? perhaps 50 would be enough?

[ClearlyClaire]

oh right! Maybe it's a little high at 200 posts then? perhaps 50 would be enough?

iirc, in the case that motivated that PR, there were more than 100 posts involved. Plus the number of mentions can vary wildly by post. I guess we can truncate the final set of inboxes instead.

[ThisIsMissEm]

oh right! Maybe it's a little high at 200 posts then? perhaps 50 would be enough?

iirc, in the case that motivated that PR, there were more than 100 posts involved. Plus the number of mentions can vary wildly by post. I guess we can truncate the final set of inboxes instead.

Yeah.. truncating that final set to sounds like a good middle-ground to balance performance and feature functionality

[ClearlyClaire]

Updated to limit to 2000 different inboxes. Maybe it's a bit much, I'm not sure how to evaluate that. But at least it's not unbounded.

[ThisIsMissEm]

Updated to limit to 2000 different inboxes. Maybe it's a bit much, I'm not sure how to evaluate that. But at least it's not unbounded.

Does that mean 2000 different servers, or 2000 individual accounts? e.g., if you've interacted with 20 people on hachyderm.io from mastodon.social, would Hachyderm.io receive 20 requests or just a single request with the "Claire on mastodon.social updated her profile" announcement?

I think the thing we'd want to avoid is the "sending N requests to a single server for a single update" situation (it's not exactly clear to me what "inbox" is in this context as I know server's have inboxes, but individual users do too.

[ClearlyClaire]

That really depends on the implementation. The 2000 is individual inboxes, which could be individual accounts or shared inbox by server depending on the implementation of those account's servers. Mastodon implements shared inboxes, so if you mention 20 people from the same Mastodon instance, that server will receive only one Update, and this would count as only one inbox for our purpose.