# I am the Watcher. I am your guide through this vast new twtiverse.
#
# Usage:
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/users View list of users and latest twt date.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/twt View all twts.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/mentions?uri=:uri View all mentions for uri.
# https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/conv/:hash View all twts for a conversation subject.
#
# Options:
# uri Filter to show a specific users twts.
# offset Start index for quey.
# limit Count of items to return (going back in time).
#
# twt range = 1 22
# self = https://watcher.sour.is/conv/klajq4q
@movq Having 2nd thoughts on this "notification extension" 😆
@movq Having 2nd thoughts on this "notification extension" 😆
@prologic Yeah, I’m really torn. 😕 Feels like throwing all of twtxt’s simplicity out the window.
@prologic Yeah, I’m really torn. 😕 Feels like throwing all of twtxt’s simplicity out the window.
@prologic Yeah, I’m really torn. 😕 Feels like throwing all of twtxt’s simplicity out the window.
@movq I'm leaning toward the optional idea of a "hook" endpoint that Gemini / Gopher authors can use. I think this is the simplest approach and one that's easier to reason about? But how do we prevent spam / abuse?
@movq I'm leaning toward the optional idea of a "hook" endpoint that Gemini / Gopher authors can use. I think this is the simplest approach and one that's easier to reason about? But how do we prevent spam / abuse?
@prologic Unfiltered thoughts:
- I don’t like the idea of yet another optional metadata field. Would be nicer if we could come up with something that “just works”.
- How would we call that hook? The same way that has been outlined in the PR? 🤔
- The spam problem applies to the HTTP User-Agent, too, btw. 🤔
@prologic Unfiltered thoughts:
- I don’t like the idea of yet another optional metadata field. Would be nicer if we could come up with something that “just works”.
- How would we call that hook? The same way that has been outlined in the PR? 🤔
- The spam problem applies to the HTTP User-Agent, too, btw. 🤔
@prologic Unfiltered thoughts:
- I don’t like the idea of yet another optional metadata field. Would be nicer if we could come up with something that “just works”.
- How would we call that hook? The same way that has been outlined in the PR? 🤔
- The spam problem applies to the HTTP User-Agent, too, btw. 🤔
@movq I'll response in a list too:
* Yes I agree, creating a Metadata just for a couple of specific protocols seems a bit much
* I think so, but I think it needs some kind of verification
* I don't think I was referring to SPAM as in "Junk data" but abuse, like having open endpoint with no authentication or verification. WebMentions has a builtin "verification" step for example.*
@movq I'll response in a list too:
* Yes I agree, creating a Metadata just for a couple of specific protocols seems a bit much
* I think so, but I think it needs some kind of verification
* I don't think I was referring to SPAM as in "Junk data" but abuse, like having open endpoint with no authentication or verification. WebMentions has a builtin "verification" step for example.*
@prologic Yes, but @movq's point is, that the User-Agent header is not verified either. So you can advertise your shitty spam feed this way. If the attacked feeds happen to look at their log files.
@prologic @lyse Yeah, that’s what I meant.
I’ll have to read up on the WebMentions spec. I have no idea how that verification could look like. 🤔
@prologic @lyse Yeah, that’s what I meant.
I’ll have to read up on the WebMentions spec. I have no idea how that verification could look like. 🤔
@prologic @lyse Yeah, that’s what I meant.
I’ll have to read up on the WebMentions spec. I have no idea how that verification could look like. 🤔
@movq The verification boils down to check that you got mentioned or linked on the advertised page. So, yeah. Nothing hard to overcome for a spammer either.
@lyse That's true, we _could_ actually verify them actually.
@lyse That's true, we _could_ actually verify them actually.
@lyse True, it's not difficult for a spammer to overcome, that's for sure. I've even mentioned this in the #indieweb-dev channel on Libera Chat. I _believe_ the response was, well it's a good enough method and we don't really see it abused in practise.
@lyse True, it's not difficult for a spammer to overcome, that's for sure. I've even mentioned this in the #indieweb-dev channel on Libera Chat. I _believe_ the response was, well it's a good enough method and we don't really see it abused in practise.
@prologic That's also my take at the moment. Haven't seen any spam in my user agent logs. So I don't bother. That's the good part about niche things. Although, it is also really nice if stuff gets designed correctly right from the beginning.