I never got IP-blocked by any instance.
Comment on [PSA] Watch for the antiyanks troll and consider adjusting your rate limits
modular950@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
I’m not an admin or really THAT technically knowledgeable when it comes to underlying infrastructure of these things, but because you mention VPN users in reference to shared IPs - would it be worth considering and mentioning mobile users or users otherwise on CGNAT networks?
For example, TMobile Home Internet would result in multiple users being represented by a shared public IP. Maybe these exit nodes don’t have nearly the number of users under one IP on comparison to users behind a popular VPN services assigned IPs? I don’t know, but thought it might be relevant! I understand it’s also a tool geared toward combatting this spam and only so much can be considered against the improvement.
NoMoreTwat@thebrainbin.org 2 days ago
admiralpatrick@lemmy.world 2 days ago
One of these days your mom’s gonna stop paying for your Mullvad subscription. Whaddya gonna do then?
admiralpatrick@lemmy.world 2 days ago
That’s a consideration, yeah, but they’d have to all be hitting lemmy.zip (your instance) and all from the same /32 IPv4 address.
(AFAIK) CG-NAT still uses port address translation so there’s an upper limit to the number of users behind one IP address. They also are distributed geographically. So everyone would need to be in the same area on the same instance to really have that be an issue.
The more likely scenario would be multiple people in the same household using the same instance. But 20 comments per minute, divided by two people in the house would still be 10 comments per minute. That’s still probably more than they could reasonably do.
modular950@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
that makes sense! thanks for the break down, and good to know!