I prefer a forum for that 😊
Obviously if you've worked on something similar, you already know it, he
Anyone could check, "are there any messages for my address?" and you get a whole list of timestamps and encrypted stuff.
Inside the encrypted message is a signature from the sender. That way you 'could' block spam.
Only the owner of the private key could see who sent what, and so...
And even with that my concussion was that users expectations for a private IM might be far away from my experiment.
legs feel really beat up but i have no idea why.
#running
legs feel really beat up but i have no idea why.
#running
legs feel really beat up but i have no idea why.
#running
Second, I'm going to try to do tests with Elliptic keys and base64. Thanks for the advice @eapl
Finally, I'd like to give my opinion. Secure direct messages are a feature that ActivityPub and Mastodon don't have, to give an example. By including it as an extension, we're already taking a significant leap forward from the competition. Does it make sense to include it in a public feed? In fact, we're already doing that. When we reply to a user, mentioning them at the beginning of the message, it's already a direct message. The message is within a thread, perhaps breaking the conversation. Direct messages would help isolate conversations between 2 users, as well as keeping a thread cleaner and maintaining privacy. I insist, it's optional, it doesn't break compatibility with any client and implementing it isn't complex. If you don't like it, you're free to not use it. If you don't have a public key, no one can send you direct messages.
Second, I'm going to try to do tests with Elliptic keys and base64. Thanks for the advice @eapl
Finally, I'd like to give my opinion. Secure direct messages are a feature that ActivityPub and Mastodon don't have, to give an example. By including it as an extension, we're already taking a significant leap forward from the competition. Does it make sense to include it in a public feed? In fact, we're already doing that. When we reply to a user, mentioning them at the beginning of the message, it's already a direct message. The message is within a thread, perhaps breaking the conversation. Direct messages would help isolate conversations between 2 users, as well as keeping a thread cleaner and maintaining privacy. I insist, it's optional, it doesn't break compatibility with any client and implementing it isn't complex. If you don't like it, you're free to not use it. If you don't have a public key, no one can send you direct messages.
- Direct Messaging for Twtxt
- @prologic 's new EdgeGuard services 🤣
- What's the weather like? 👍
Details:
- When: 25th Jan 2025 at 12:00PM UTC (midday)
- Where: https://meet.mills.io/call/Yarn.social
- Direct Messaging for Twtxt
- @prologic 's new EdgeGuard services 🤣
- What's the weather like? 👍
Details:
- When: 25th Jan 2025 at 12:00PM UTC (midday)
- Where: https://meet.mills.io/call/Yarn.social
i have probably watched through them a half dozen times each. some more :D
i have probably watched through them a half dozen times each. some more :D
Bush fire sunsets are the nicest
[0]). A syntax like the following could help to know what public key you used to encrypt the message, and which private key the client should use to decrypt it:
!<nick url> <encrypted_message> <public_key_hash_7_chars>
Also I'd remove support for storing the message as hex, only allowing base64 (more compact, aiming for a minimalistic spec, etc.)
[0] https://www.brandonchecketts.com/archives/its-2023-you-should-be-using-an-ed25519-ssh-key-and-other-current-best-practices
https://github.com/eapl-gemugami/owl/blob/main/src/app/controller/ecies_demo.php