-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 401
MSC4155: Invite filtering #4155
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
Johennes
wants to merge
28
commits into
matrix-org:main
Choose a base branch
from
Johennes:johannes/invite-filtering
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
28 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
6adc165
MSC4155: Invite filtering
Johennes 43aef70
Fix typo
Johennes b8b226a
Update proposal with feedback from pull request
Johennes dcde420
Update proposals/4155-invite-filtering.md
Johennes 04169f8
Update proposals/4155-invite-filtering.md
Johennes 8c81fd5
Update proposals/4155-invite-filtering.md
Johennes d132a13
Update proposals/4155-invite-filtering.md
Johennes 2345a5b
Update proposals/4155-invite-filtering.md
Johennes a558adb
Update proposals/4155-invite-filtering.md
Johennes a47dbce
Update proposals/4155-invite-filtering.md
Johennes e9478f0
Update proposals/4155-invite-filtering.md
Johennes 29324e9
Drop capability and enforce the config on the server only
Johennes 2f17aa7
Add missing client-side review option as a potential issue
Johennes 3b248c5
Update proposals/4155-invite-filtering.md
Johennes 230ed37
Update proposals/4155-invite-filtering.md
Johennes f916f98
Update proposals/4155-invite-filtering.md
Johennes 44ecf7e
Update proposals/4155-invite-filtering.md
Johennes 88fe9cc
Fix list indentation
Johennes be64f07
Extend alternatives
Johennes e526862
Update proposals/4155-invite-filtering.md
Johennes 52c8bd5
Clarify interaction with m.ignored_user_list
Johennes 0eee397
Fix typo
Johennes 21521f0
Spell out what the globs should operate on
Johennes 643c5bc
Avoid 'eponymous'
Johennes 5c3cab8
Avoid over-specifying null / missing behaviour
Johennes 16dd841
Update proposals/4155-invite-filtering.md
Johennes e735ee8
Add expanding m.ignored_user_list as an alternative
Johennes f65b9b2
Ignore ports when applying server globs
Johennes File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ | ||
# MSC4155: Invite filtering | ||
|
||
Matrix supports ignoring users via the eponymous [module] and the `m.ignored_user_list` account data | ||
Johennes marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
event. This is a nuclear option though and will suppress both invites and room events from the ignored | ||
users. Additionally, the `m.ignored_user_list` event only allows for block-list configurations that ignore | ||
specific users but doesn't have a mechanism to ignore entire servers. These shortcomings make the module | ||
Johennes marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
insufficient for use cases such as tightly locked down applications where ignoring needs to be the default | ||
behaviour. | ||
|
||
This proposal generalises the ignoring users [module] to allow filtering invites specifically. The scheme | ||
outlined below is conceptually borrowed from the [gematik specification]. The main purpose of this proposal | ||
is to ensure that this option is available for comparison with [other existing MSCs] that attempt to address | ||
invite filtering. | ||
|
||
|
||
## Proposal | ||
|
||
To allow users to configure which other users are allowed to invite them into rooms, a new account data | ||
event `m.invite_permission_config` is introduced. | ||
|
||
```json5 | ||
{ | ||
"type": "m.invite_permission_config", | ||
"content": { | ||
"default": "allow | block", | ||
"user_exceptions": { | ||
"@someone:example.org": {}, | ||
... | ||
}, | ||
"server_exceptions": { | ||
"example.org": {}, | ||
... | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
The `default` field defines the standard setting that is applied to all invites that don't match an | ||
exception. Exceptions invert the default setting and are provided via the `user_exceptions` and | ||
`server_exceptions` fields which follow the format of the `ignored_users` field in `m.ignored_user_list`. | ||
turt2live marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
As an example, a block-list configuration that ignores invites from `@badguy:scam.org` but allows invites | ||
from any other user would look like this: | ||
|
||
```json5 | ||
{ | ||
"type": "m.invite_permission_config", | ||
"content": { | ||
"default": "allow", | ||
"user_exceptions": { | ||
"@badguy:scam.org": {}, | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
Johennes marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
In contrast, an allow-list configuration that permits invites from users on goodguys.org but blocks invites | ||
from all other servers would look like this: | ||
|
||
```json5 | ||
{ | ||
"type": "m.invite_permission_config", | ||
"content": { | ||
"default": "block", | ||
"server_exceptions": { | ||
"goodguys.org": {}, | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
turt2live marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
Note that since the default setting for entities that don't match an exception is part of the configuration, | ||
an exception for a user does _not_ need to be accompanied by an exception for their server[^1]. | ||
|
||
Servers MAY suppress invites for which the configuration evaluates to `block` and not send them to the recipient. | ||
They MAY additionally reject the invite. | ||
|
||
Clients SHOULD hide invites from users for which the permission configuration evaluates to `block`. They MAY | ||
allow reviewing ignored invites in a dedicated section of their UI. | ||
Johennes marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
|
||
## Potential issues | ||
|
||
Larger permission configurations could run into the [event size limit] of 65536 bytes. This issue also exists | ||
with the `m.ignored_user_list` event. | ||
Johennes marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
turt2live marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
## Alternatives | ||
|
||
As mentioned above, the main goal of this proposal is to offer an alternative so that the question of invite | ||
filtering can be answered holistically. Therefore, this section will not attempt to make a case for why the | ||
current proposal is better than others and instead simply list the alternatives known to the author at the | ||
time of writing: | ||
|
||
- [MSC2270] (which borrows from `m.ignored_user_list` to ignore rooms and invites) | ||
- [MSC3659] (which introduces a push-rule-like grammar to filter invites) | ||
- [MSC3840] (which is similar to this proposal but only supports block-list semantics) | ||
- [MSC3847] (which ignores invites by building on [moderation policy lists] and could be combined with | ||
[MSC4150] to support both block-list and allow-list use cases) | ||
|
||
|
||
## Security considerations | ||
|
||
None. | ||
|
||
|
||
## Unstable prefix | ||
|
||
Until this proposal is accepted into the spec, implementations should refer to `m.invite_permission_config` | ||
as `org.matrix.msc4155.invite_permission_config`. Note that the [gematik specification], which predates | ||
this MSC, uses an event type of `de.gematik.tim.account.permissionconfig.v1` and slightly different field | ||
names. Given that the general JSON scheme of the event is the same though, implementations of the | ||
[gematik specification] should largely be equivalent to implementations of this MSC. | ||
|
||
|
||
Johennes marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
## Dependencies | ||
|
||
None. | ||
|
||
|
||
[^1]: This is in contrast to e.g. [Mjolnir] which requires two `org.matrix.mjolnir.allow` rules, one for | ||
the user ID and one for the server name, to build an allow list that only permits a single user. | ||
|
||
[event size limit]: https://spec.matrix.org/v1.10/client-server-api/#size-limits | ||
[gematik specification]: https://github.com/gematik/api-ti-messenger/blob/9b9f21b87949e778de85dbbc19e25f53495871e2/src/schema/permissionConfig.json | ||
[Mjolnir]: https://github.com/matrix-org/mjolnir | ||
[MSC2270]: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/2270 | ||
[MSC3659]: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3659 | ||
[MSC3840]: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3840 | ||
[MSC3847]: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3847 | ||
[MSC4150]: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/4150 | ||
[moderation policy lists]: https://spec.matrix.org/v1.10/client-server-api/#moderation-policy-lists | ||
[module]: https://spec.matrix.org/v1.10/client-server-api/#ignoring-users | ||
[other existing MSCs]: #alternatives |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Implementation requirements:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since I believe all the gematik implementations will be closed source, I'll reference #3860 (comment) as an example for how cases like this were handled in the past. Thanks @clokep for digging it up.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
element-hq/synapse#18288 is a serverside implementation, albeit with #4155 (comment) "corrected"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
element-hq/element-web#29603 exposes the serverside settings in the client, but does no filtering of itself. @Johennes does this evoke any worries from you if the invite filtering is done server-side?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, I this is fine and consistent with the proposal which allows but doesn't enforce the filtering on either the client or the server. Now that I think of it, we might need a capability so that the client knows when the server does not filter in which case the client needs to filter itself.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
element-hq/synapse#18288 supports the updated proposal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
With my SCT hat:
The following implementations demonstrate the desire for filtering, and experiment with different ordering, but all demonstrate that the code is more than possible:
The following implementations show that there's desire, but don't do much with the actual config:
Collectively, I feel this satisfies the implementation component, though we should monitor for user feedback if the rule processing order feels wrong. If so, we can correct it with a future MSC relatively easily (it'll suck for people on implementations which use the 'old' rules, but as those implementations update users will see the changes).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wish I shared your confidence. Won't it (also) suck for people who have set up rules with the "old" system, which suddenly don't work because the ordering has changed? And then they'll change the rules and get something that works with their client but not their server.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I cannot think of a good way to prevent that other than blocking this MSC to let implementations try out the currently proposed ordering in practice. That'll involve exactly the same migration pain for users if the proposal changes, just that people will (hopefully consciously) have opted into an explicitly unstable implementation at their own risk.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah I don't disagree with you there. At some point we're going to have to just decide that we have enough confidence in the ordering that it's worth shipping. I just think it's worth having our eyes open to the fact that changing it later is going to be a bit of a buttpain, rather than "relatively easy" as Travis claimed.