@anth@a.9srv.net you wrote:

“Edits and Deletions should go; see also Section 6. This is probably the worst example of this document pushing a text document to do more protocol-like things.”

Edit and deletions are precisely what brought us here. Currently, if one replies to a twtxt, and the original gets later edited, it breaks replies, and potentially drastically changes context.

This is only first draft quality, but I made some notes on the #twtxt v2 proposal. http://a.9srv.net/b/2024-09-25

No, json is overhead. I love twtxt for simplicity where blog is just text file and not several json files where fields are repeated…

@sorenpeter@darch.dk not even this: https://twtxt.net/media/AzUmzTN5YEJdt4VPeeprjB.png?full=1

@sorenpeter@darch.dk this will show broken, because you are hellbent on editing twtxts, aren’t you? :-D

(#2024-09-24T12:53:35Z) What does this screenshot show? The resolution it too low for reading the text…

(#2024-09-24T12:45:54Z) @prologic@twtxt.net I’m not really buying this one about readability. It’s easy to recognize that this is a URL and a date, so you skim over it like you would we mentions and markdown links and images. If you are not suppose to read the raw file, then we might a well jam everything into JSON like mastodon

(#2024-09-24T12:44:35Z) There is a increase in space/memory for sure. But calculating the hashes also takes up CPU. I’m not good with that kind of math, but it’s a tradeoff either way.

(#2024-09-24T12:39:32Z) @prologic@twtxt.net It might be simple for you to run echo -e "\t\t" | sha256sum | base64, but for people who are not comfortable in a terminal and got their dev env set up, then that is magic, compared to the simplicity of just copy/pasting what you see in a textfile into another textfile – Basically what @movq@www.uninformativ.de also said. I’m also on team extreme minimalism, otherwise we could just use mastodon etc. Replacing line-breaks with a tab would also make it easier to handwrite your twtxt. You don’t have to hardwrite it, but at least you should have the option to. Just as i do with all my HTML and CSS.

(#2024-09-24T12:34:31Z) WebMentions does would work if we agreed to implement it correctly. I never figured out how yarnd’s WebMentions work, so I decide to make my own, which I’m the only one using…

I had a look at WebSub, witch looks way more complex than WebMentions, and seem to need a lot more overhead. We don’t need near realtime. We just need a way to notify someone that someone they don’t know about mentioned or replied to their post.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org aha! Just like Bash would do. I figure -- is way too broad to start an autocomplete. Got to feed it a bit more! :-D

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org that -P is a life saver when running rsync over spotty connections. In my very illiterate opinion, it should always be a default.

@aelaraji@aelaraji.com I think all replies are missing the fact that your auto-completion isn’t working. LOL. Or did I misunderstood?

@aelaraji@aelaraji.com @mckinley@twtxt.net rsync -avzr with an optional --progress is what I always use. Ah, I could use the shorter -P, thanks @movq@www.uninformativ.de.

@aelaraji@aelaraji.com rsync -zaXAP is what I use all the time. But that’s all – for the rest, I have to consult the manual. 😅

Aggred. But reading twtxt in raw form sounds… I can’t do this

And finally the legibility of feeds when viewing them in their raw form are worsened as you go from a Twt Subject of (#abcdefg12345) to something like (https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt 2024-09-22T07:51:16Z).

@sorenpeter@darch.dk Points 2 & 3 aren’t really applicable here in the discussion of the threading model really I’m afraid. WebMentions is completely orthogonal to the discussion. Further, no-one that uses Twtxt really uses WebMentions, whilst yarnd supports the use of WebMentions, it’s very rarely used in practise (if ever) – In fact I should just drop the feature entirely.

The use of WebSub OTOH is far more useful and is used by every single yarnd pod everywhere (no that there’s that many around these days) to subscribe to feed updates in ~near real-time without having the poll constantly.

Some more arguments for a local-based treading model over a content-based one:

1. The format: (#<DATE URL>) or (@<DATE URL>) both makes sense: # as prefix is for a hashtag like we allredy got with the (#twthash) and @ as prefix denotes that this is mention of a specific post in a feed, and not just the feed in general. Using either can make implementation easier, since most clients already got this kind of filtering.

2. Having something like (#<DATE URL>) will also make mentions via webmetions for twtxt easier to implement, since there is no need for looking up the #twthash. This will also make it possible to make 3th part twt-mentions services.

3. Supporting twt/webmentions will also increase discoverability as a way to know about both replies and feed mentions from feeds that you don’t follow.

Finally pubnix is alive! That’s im missing? Im only reading twtxt.net timeline because twtxt-v2.sh works slowly for displaying timeline…

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Yes, the tools are surprisingly fast. Still, magrep takes about 20 seconds to search through my archive of 140K emails, so to speed things up I would probably combine it with an indexer like mu, mairix or notmuch.

@xuu@txt.sour.is I think it is more tricky than that.

https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/application-regulation/who-does-data-protection-law-apply_en

“A company or entity …”

Also, as I understand it, “personal or household activity” (as you called it) is rather strict: An example could be you uploading photos to a webspace behind HTTP basic auth and sending that link to a friend. So, yes, a webserver is involved and you process your friend’s data (e.g., when did he access your files), but it’s just between you and him. But if you were to publish these photos publicly on a webserver that anyone can access, then it’s a different story – even though you could say that “this is just my personal hobby, not related to any job or money”.

If you operate a public Yarn pod and if you accept registrations from other users, then I’m pretty sure the GDPR applies. 🤔 You process personal data and you don’t really know these people. It’s not a personal/private thing anymore.

@falsifian@www.falsifian.org I believe the preserve means to include the original subject hash in the start of the twt such as (#somehash)

@falsifian@www.falsifian.org I believe the preserve means to include the original subject hash in the start of the twt such as (#somehash)

So I whipped up a quick shell script to demonstrate what I mean by the increase in feed size on average as well as the expected increase in storage and retrieval requirements.

$ ./compare.sh
Original file size: 28145 bytes
Modified file size: 70672 bytes
Percentage increase in file size: 151.10%
...

@bender@twtxt.net Ha! Maybe I should get on the Markdown train. You’re taking away my excuses.

@bender@twtxt.net

Sorry, you’re right, I should have used numbers!

I’m don’t understand what “preserve the original hash” could mean other than “make sure there’s still a twt in the feed with that hash”. Maybe the text could be clarified somehow.

I’m also not sure what you mean by markdown already being part of it. Of course people can already use Markdown, just like presumably nothing stopped people from using (twt subjects) before they were formally described. But it’s not universal; e.g. as a jenny user I just see the plain text.

@falsifian@www.falsifian.org The GDPR does not apply to the processing of data for a purely personal or household activity that is not connected to a professional or commercial activity.

@falsifian@www.falsifian.org The GDPR does not apply to the processing of data for a purely personal or household activity that is not connected to a professional or commercial activity.

@prologic@twtxt.net Do you feel the same about published vs. privately stored data?

For me there’s a distinction. I feel very strongly that I should be able to retain whatever private information I like. On the other hand, I do have some sympathy for requests not to publish or propagate (though I personally feel it’s still morally acceptable to ignore such requests).

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org I’d suggest making the whole content-type thing a SHOULD, to accommodate people just using some hosting service they don’t have much control over. (The same situation could make detecting followers hard, but IMO “please email me if you follow me” is still legit twtxt, even if inconvenient.)

@prologic@twtxt.net Thanks for writing that up!

I hope it can remain a living document (or sequence of draft revisions) for a good long time while we figure out how this stuff works in practice.

I am not sure how I feel about all this being done at once, vs. letting conventions arise.

For example, even today I could reply to twt abc1234 with “(#abc1234) Edit: …” and I think all you humans would understand it as an edit to (#abc1234). Maybe eventually it would become a common enough convention that clients would start to support it explicitly.

Similarly we could just start using 11-digit hashes. We should iron out whether it’s sha256 or whatever but there’s no need get all the other stuff right at the same time.

I have similar thoughts about how some users could try out location-based replies in a backward-compatible way (append the replyto: stuff after the legacy (#hash) style).

However I recognize that I’m not the one implementing this stuff, and it’s less work to just have everything determined up front.

Misc comments (I haven’t read the whole thing):

• Did you mean to make hashes hexadecimal? You lose 11 bits that way compared to base32. I’d suggest gaining 11 bits with base64 instead.

• “Clients MUST preserve the original hash” — do you mean they MUST preserve the original twt?

• Thanks for phrasing the bit about deletions so neutrally.

• I don’t like the MUST in “Clients MUST follow the chain of reply-to references…”. If someone writes a client as a 40-line shell script that requires the user to piece together the threading themselves, IMO we shouldn’t declare the client non-conforming just because they didn’t get to all the bells and whistles.

• Similarly I don’t like the MUST for user agents. For one thing, you might want to fetch a feed without revealing your identty. Also, it raises the bar for a minimal implementation (I’m again thinking again of the 40-line shell script).

• For “who follows” lists: why must the long, random tokens be only valid for a limited time? Do you have a scenario in mind where they could leak?

• Why can’t feeds be served over HTTP/1.0? Again, thinking about simple software. I recently tried implementing HTTP/1.1 and it wasn’t too bad, but 1.0 would have been slightly simpler.

• Why get into the nitty-gritty about caching headers? This seems like generic advice for HTTP servers and clients.

• I’m a little sad about other protocols being not recommended.

• I don’t know how I feel about including markdown. I don’t mind too much that yarn users emit twts full of markdown, but I’m more of a plain text kind of person. Also it adds to the length. I wonder if putting a separate document would make more sense; that would also help with the length.

So I’m a location based system, how exactly do I reply to one of these two Twts from @Yarns@search.twtxt.net ? 🤔

2024-09-07T12:55:56Z	🥳 NEW FEED: @<twtxt http://edsu.github.io/twtxt/twtxt.txt>
2024-09-07T12:55:56Z	🥳 NEW FEED: @<kdy https://twtxt.kdy.ch/twtxt.txt>

Okay folks, I’ve spent all day on this today, and I think its in “good enough”™ shape to share:

Twtxt v2:

• Specification: https://docs.mills.io/uJXuisaYTRWYDrl8A2jADg?both
  
• implementation: https://gist.mills.io/prologic/afdec15443da4d7aa898f383f171ec1b
  

LOl 😂 Not only have a tried to write up a full Twtxt v2 specification, I’ve also written a Bash shell script that implements the new spec 😅

Had to build a list of all feeds (that I follow) and all twts in them and there are two collisions already:

$ ./stats
Saw 58263 hashes
7fqcxaa
  https://twtxt.net/user/justamoment/twtxt.txt
  https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt
ntnakqa
  https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt
  https://twtxt.net/user/thecanine/twtxt.txt

Namely:

$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/justamoment/twtxt.txt | grep 7fqcxaa

[7fqcxaa] [2022-12-28 04:53:30+00:00] [(#pmuqoca) @prologic@twtxt.net I checked the GitHub discussion, it became a request to join forces.

Do you plan on having them join?

Also for the name, how about:

• “progit” or “prologit” (prologic official hard fork)
  
• “git-stance” (git instance)
  
• “GitTree” (Gitea inspired, maybe to related)
  
• “Gitomata” (git automata)
  
• “Git.Source”
  
• “Forgor” (forgit is taken so I forgor) 🤣
  
• “SweetGit” (as salty chat)
  
• “Pepper Git” (other ingredients) 😉
  
• “GitHeart” (core of git with a GitHub sounding name)
  
• “GitTaka” (With music in mind)
  

Ok, enough fun… Hope this helps sprout some ideas from others if nothing is to your taste.]

$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt/5 | grep 7fqcxaa

[7fqcxaa] [2022-02-25 21:14:45+00:00] [(#bqq6fxq) It’s handled by blue Monday]

And:

$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/thecanine/twtxt.txt | grep ntnakqa
[ntnakqa] [2022-01-23 10:24:09+00:00] [(#2wh7r4q) <a href="https://txt.sour.is/external?uri=https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt">@prologic<em>@twtxt.net</em></a> I know, I was just hoping it might have also gotten fixed by that change, by some kind of backend miracles. 😂]

$ jenny -D https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt/1 | grep ntnakqa
[ntnakqa] [2024-02-27 05:51:50+00:00] [(#otuupfq) <a href="https://txt.sour.is/external?uri=https://twtxt.net/user/shreyan/twtxt.txt">@shreyan<em>@twtxt.net</em></a>  Ahh 👌]

👋 Reminder folks of the upcoming Yarn.social monthly online meetup:

I hope to see @david@collantes.us @movq@www.uninformativ.de @lyse@lyse.isobeef.org @xuu@txt.sour.is @sorenpeter@darch.dk and hopefully others too @aelaraji@aelaraji.com @falsifian@www.falsifian.org and anyone else that sees this! 🙏 We’re hopefully going to primarily discuss the future of Twtxt and the last few weeks of discussions 🤣

• Event: Yarn.social Online Meetup
  
• When: 28th September 2024 at 12:00pm UTC (midday)
  
• Where: Mills Meet : Yarn.social
  
• Cadence: 4th Saturday of every Month
  

Agenda:

• Let’s talk about the upcoming changes to the Twtxt spec(s)
  
  • See #xgghhnq
    

#Yarn.social #Meetup

@movq@www.uninformativ.de I cases of these kind of “abuse” of social trust. Then I think people should just delete their replies, unfollow the troll and leave them to shouting in the void. This is a inter-social issue, not a technical issue. Anything can be spoofed. We are not building a banking app, we are just having conversation and if trust are broken then communication breaks down. These edge-cases are all very hypothetical and not something I think we need to solve with technology.

@prologic@twtxt.net “Even though there are some 😉 that have different views on this 🤣” — coyly raises the hand… LOL.

@aelaraji@aelaraji.com This is one of the reasons why yarnd has a couple of settings with some sensible/sane defaults:

I could already imagine a couple of extreme cases where, somewhere, in this peaceful world one’s exercise of freedom of speech could get them in Real trouble (if not danger) if found out, it wouldn’t necessarily have to involve something to do with Law or legal authorities. So, If someone asks, and maybe fearing fearing for… let’s just say ‘Their well being’, would it heart if a pod just purged their content if it’s serving it publicly (maybe relay the info to other pods) and call it a day? It doesn’t have to be about some law/convention somewhere … 🤷 I know! Too extreme, but I’ve seen news of people who’d gone to jail or got their lives ruined for as little as a silly joke. And it doesn’t even have to be about any of this.

There are two settings:

$ ./yarnd --help 2>&1 | grep max-cache
      --max-cache-fetchers int        set maximum numnber of fetchers to use for feed cache updates (default 10)
  -I, --max-cache-items int           maximum cache items (per feed source) of cached twts in memory (default 150)
  -C, --max-cache-ttl duration        maximum cache ttl (time-to-live) of cached twts in memory (default 336h0m0s)

So yarnd pods by default are designed to only keep Twts around publicly visible on either the anonymous Frontpage or Discover View or your Timeline or the feed’s Timeline for up to 2 weeks with a maximum of 150 items, whichever get exceeded first. Any Twts over this are considered “old” and drop off the active cache.

It’s a feature that my old man @off_grid_living@twtxt.net was very strongly in support of, as was I back in the day of yarnd’s design (nothing particularly to do with Twtxt per se) that I’ve to this day stuck by – Even though there are some 😉 that have different views on this 🤣

@movq@www.uninformativ.de @falsifian@www.falsifian.org @prologic@twtxt.net Maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about and You’ve probably already read this: Everything you need to know about the “Right to be forgotten” coming straight out of the EU’s GDPR Website itself. It outlines the specific circumstances under which the right to be forgotten applies as well as reasons that trump the one’s right to erasure …etc.

I’m no lawyer, but my uneducated guess would be that:

A) twts are already publicly available/public knowledge and such… just don’t process children’s personal data and MAYBE you’re good? Since there’s this:

… an organization’s right to process someone’s data might override their right to be forgotten. Here are the reasons cited in the GDPR that trump the right to erasure:

• The data is being used to exercise the right of freedom of expression and information.
  
• The data is being used to perform a task that is being carried out in the public interest or when exercising an organization’s official authority.
  
• The data represents important information that serves the public interest, scientific research, historical research, or statistical purposes and where erasure of the data would likely to impair or halt progress towards the achievement that was the goal of the processing.
  

B) What I love about the TWTXT sphere is it’s Human/Humane element! No deceptive algorithms, no Corpo B.S …etc. Just Humans. So maybe … If we thought about it in this way, it wouldn’t heart to be even nicer to others/offering strangers an even safer space.
I could already imagine a couple of extreme cases where, somewhere, in this peaceful world one’s exercise of freedom of speech could get them in Real trouble (if not danger) if found out, it wouldn’t necessarily have to involve something to do with Law or legal authorities. So, If someone asks, and maybe fearing fearing for… let’s just say ‘Their well being’, would it heart if a pod just purged their content if it’s serving it publicly (maybe relay the info to other pods) and call it a day? It doesn’t have to be about some law/convention somewhere … 🤷 I know! Too extreme, but I’ve seen news of people who’d gone to jail or got their lives ruined for as little as a silly joke. And it doesn’t even have to be about any of this.

P.S: Maybe make X tool check out robots.txt? Or maybe make long-term archives Opt-in? Opt-out?
P.P.S: Already Way too many MAYBE’s in a single twt! So I’ll just shut up. 😅

@prologic@twtxt.net I have no specifics, only hopes. (I have seen some articles explaining the GDPR doesn’t apply to a “purely personal or household activity” but I don’t really know what that means.)

I don’t know if it’s worth giving much thought to the issue unless either you expect to get big enough for the GDPR to matter a lot (I imagine making money is a prerequisite) or someone specifically brings it up. Unless you enjoy thinking through this sort of thing, of course.

@falsifian@www.falsifian.org Do you have specifics about the GRPD law about this?

Would the GDPR would apply to a one-person client like jenny? I seriously hope not. If someone asks me to delete an email they sent me, I don’t think I have to honour that request, no matter how European they are.

I’m not sure myself now. So let’s find out whether parts of the GDPR actually apply to a truly decentralised system? 🤔

And they have arrived (well, they did around 3 hours ago, LOL). Buttery smooth, my 16 Pro (one with dark cover). It took a bit over an hour to transfer all my data.

Image

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org yeah, tell us, @prologic@twtxt.net, what isn’t true? 🤔 You can’t just go around, “that’s not true, and that’s not true; and that, and that!” without spelling out exactly what isn’t, and why? For the love of god, why?! 😂

@falsifian@www.falsifian.org comments on the feeds as in nick, url, follow, that kind of thing? If that, then not interested at all. I envision an archive that would allow searching, and potentially browsing threads on a nice, neat interface. You will have to think, though, on other things. Like, what to do with images? Yarn allows users to upload images, but also embed it in twtxts from other sources (hotlinking, actually).

@david@collantes.us Thanks, that’s good feedback to have. I wonder to what extent this already exists in registry servers and yarn pods. I haven’t really tried digging into the past in either one.

How interested would you be in changes in metadata and other comments in the feeds? I’m thinking of just permanently saving every version of each twtxt file that gets pulled, not just the twts. It wouldn’t be hard to do (though presenting the information in a sensible way is another matter). Compression should make storage a non-issue unless someone does something weird with their feed like shuffle the comments around every time I fetch it.

@falsifian@www.falsifian.org “I was actually thinking about making an Internet Archive style twtxt archiver, letting you explore past twts” — that’s an awesome idea for a project. Something I would certainly use!

@movq@www.uninformativ.de I don’t think it has to be like that. Just make sure the new version of the twt is always appended to your current feed, and have some convention for indicating it’s an edit and which twt it supersedes. Keep the original twt as-is (or delete it if you don’t want new followers to see it); doesn’t matter if it’s archived because you aren’t changing that copy.

@prologic@twtxt.net Do you have a link to some past discussion?

Would the GDPR would apply to a one-person client like jenny? I seriously hope not. If someone asks me to delete an email they sent me, I don’t think I have to honour that request, no matter how European they are.

I am really bothered by the idea that someone could force me to delete my private, personal record of my interactions with them. Would I have to delete my journal entries about them too if they asked?

Maybe a public-facing client like yarnd needs to consider this, but that also bothers me. I was actually thinking about making an Internet Archive style twtxt archiver, letting you explore past twts, including long-dead feeds, see edit histories, deleted twts, etc.

@prologic@twtxt.net what time in UTC?

@prologic@twtxt.net cool, I will be there! Are you going to post the regular banner notice? It will serve as a reminder, at least for me.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org I don’t think this is true.

@david@collantes.us Well, I wouldn’t recommend using my code for your main jenny use anyway. If you want to try it out, set XDG_CONFIG_HOME and XDG_CACHE_HOME to some sandbox directories and only run my code there. If @movq@www.uninformativ.de is interested in any of this getting upstreamed, I’d be happy to try rebasing the changes, but otherwise it’s a proof of concept and fun exercise.

@falsifian@www.falsifian.org hiya from the Sunshine State (also known as a never-ending hell, LOL)!

@falsifian@www.falsifian.org this one hits hard, as jenny was just updated today. :‘-(

@david@collantes.us Hello!

@prologic@twtxt.net Hi. i have noticed sometimes when i hit the back button i lose all the surrounding layout and just have a list of twts.

@prologic@twtxt.net Hi. i have noticed sometimes when i hit the back button i lose all the surrounding layout and just have a list of twts.

I wrote some code to try out non-hash reply subjects formatted as (replyto ), while keeping the ability to use the existing hash style.

I don’t think we need to decide all at once. If clients add support for a new method then people can use it if they like. The downside of course is that this costs developer time, so I decided to invest a few hours of my own time into a proof of concept.

With apologies to @movq@www.uninformativ.de for corrupting jenny’s beautiful code. I don’t write this expecting you to incorporate the patch, because it does complicate things and might not be a direction you want to go in. But if you like any part of this approach feel free to use bits of it; I release the patch under jenny’s current LICENCE.

Supporting both kinds of reply in jenny was complicated because each email can only have one Message-Id, and because it’s possible the target twt will not be seen until after the twt referencing it. The following patch uses an sqlite database to keep track of known (url, timestamp) pairs, as well as a separate table of (url, timestamp) pairs that haven’t been seen yet but are wanted. When one of those “wanted” twts is finally seen, the mail file gets rewritten to include the appropriate In-Reply-To header.

Patch based on jenny commit 73a5ea81.

https://www.falsifian.org/a/oDtr/patch0.txt

Not implemented:

• Composing twts using the (replyto …) format.
  
• Probably other important things I’m forgetting.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org indeed! There is no “central authority” acting as witness, and notary. The more I think of it… LOL.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de I recognise him, but yes, he has aged quite a bit. I mean, I look at myself in the mirror and can’t, often, recognise myself. Ageing is a bitch! 😅

I mean, really, it couldn’t get any better. I love it!

Image

@movq@www.uninformativ.de perfect in every way. Configurable too! Thank you!

@movq@www.uninformativ.de yes, that’s perfect! <3

@eldersnake@we.loveprivacy.club I wanted to ask you, are you running Headscale and WireGuard on the same VPS? I want to test Headscale, but currently run a small container with WireGuard, and I wonder if I need to stop (and eventually get rid of) the container to get Headscale going. Did you use the provided .deb to install Headscale, or some other method?

@prologic@twtxt.net I read it. I understand it. Hopefully a solution can be agreed upon that solves the editing issue, whilst maintaining the cryptographic hash.

Can I get someone like maybe @xuu@txt.sour.is or @abucci@anthony.buc.ci or even @eldersnake@we.loveprivacy.club – If you have some spare time – to test this yarnd PR that upgrades the Bitcask dependency for its internal database to v2? 🙏

VERY IMPORTANT If you do; Please Please Please backup your yarn.db database first! 😅 Heaven knows I don’t want to be responsible for fucking up a production database here or there 🤣

@prologic@twtxt.net I know the role of the current hash is to allow referencing (replies and, thus, threads), and it also represents a “unique” way to verify a twtxt hasn’t been tampered with. Is that second so important, if we are trying to allow edits? I know if feels good to be able to verify, but in reality, how often one does it?

@movq@www.uninformativ.de could it be possible to have compressed_subject(msg_singlelined) be configurable, so only a certain number of characters get displayed, ending on ellipses? Right now the entire twtxt is crammed into the Subject:. This request aims to make twtxts display on mutt/neomutt, etc. more like emails do.

@prologic@twtxt.net I don’t trust Google with anything, sorry, pass. Oh, and you need to sign in on your Google Account (or whatever they call it these days).

@prologic@twtxt.net how about hashing a combination of nick/timestamp, or url/timestamp only, and not the twtxt content? On edit those will not change, so no breaking of threads. I know, I know, just adding noise here. :-P

@eldersnake@we.loveprivacy.club there has to be less reliance on a single point of failure. It is not so much about creating jobs in the US (which come with it, anyway), but about the ability to produce what’s needed at home too. What’s the trade off? Is it going to be a little bit more expensive to manufacture, perhaps?

@prologic@twtxt.net That’s definitely a little less depressing, when thinking of it that way 🤣 Be interesting when the hype dies down.

@quark@ferengi.one It does not. That is why I’m advocating for not using hashes for treads, but a simpler link-back scheme.

@prologic@twtxt.net where was that idea?

@prologic@twtxt.net where was that idea?

@prologic@twtxt.net the basic idea was to stem the hash.. so you have a hash abcdef0123456789... any sub string of that hash after the first 6 will match. so abcdef, abcdef012, abcdef0123456 all match the same. on the case of a collision i think we decided on matching the newest since we archive off older threads anyway. the third rule was about growing the minimum hash size after some threshold of collisions were detected.

@prologic@twtxt.net the basic idea was to stem the hash.. so you have a hash abcdef0123456789... any sub string of that hash after the first 6 will match. so abcdef, abcdef012, abcdef0123456 all match the same. on the case of a collision i think we decided on matching the newest since we archive off older threads anyway. the third rule was about growing the minimum hash size after some threshold of collisions were detected.

@prologic@twtxt.net Wikipedia claims sha1 is vulnerable to a “chosen-prefix attack”, which I gather means I can write any two twts I like, and then cause them to have the exact same sha1 hash by appending something. I guess a twt ending in random junk might look suspcious, but perhaps the junk could be worked into an image URL like

Image

git only uses sha1 because they’re stuck with it: migrating is very hard. There was an effort to move git to sha256 but I don’t know its status. I think there is progress being made with Game Of Trees, a git clone that uses the same on-disk format.

I can’t imagine any benefit to using sha1, except that maybe some very old software might support sha1 but not sha256.

@prologic@twtxt.net :-D Thanks! Things can come in cycles, right? This is simply another one. Another cycle, more personal than the other “alter egos”.

@aelaraji@aelaraji.com hey, hey! You are my very first reply! 👋🏻 Cheers!

Incredibly upset—more than you could imagine—because I already made the first mistake, and corrected it (but twtxt.net got it on it’s cache, ugh!) :‘-( . Can’t wait for editing to become a reality!

Alright. My first mentions—which were picked not so randomly, LOL—are @prologic@twtxt.net, @lyse@lyse.isobeef.org, and @movq@www.uninformativ.de. I am also posting my first image too, which you see below. That’s my neighbourhood, in a “winter” day. Hopefully @prologic@twtxt.net will add my domain to his allowed list, so that the image (and any other further) renders.

Image

Alright, announce_me set to true. Now, who do I pick to be my first mention? Decisions, decisions. Next twtxt will have my first mention(s). :-)

I have configured my twtxt.txt as simple as possible. I have setup a publish_command on jenny. Hopefully all works fine, and I am good to go. Next will be setting the announce_me to true. Here we go!

@sorenpeter@darch.dk hmm, how does your client handles “a little editing”? I am sure threads would break just as well. 😉

@prologic@twtxt.net, there is a parser bug on parent. Specifically on this portion:

"*If twtxt/Yarn was to grow bigger, then this would become a concern again. *But even Mastodon allows editing*, so how
+much of a problem can it really be? 😅*"

@movq@www.uninformativ.de going a little sideways on this, “*If twtxt/Yarn was to grow bigger, then this would become a concern again. But even Mastodon allows editing, so how much of a problem can it really be? 😅*”, wouldn’t it preparing for a potential (even if very, very, veeeeery remote) growth be a good thing? Mastodon signs all messages, keeps a history of edits, and it doesn’t break threads. It isn’t a problem there.😉 It is here.

I think keeping hashes is a must. If anything for that “feels good” feeling.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Agreed that hashes have a benefit. I came up with a similar example where when I twted about an 11-character hash collision. Perhaps hashes could be made optional somehow. Like, you could use the “replyto” idea and then additionally put a hash somewhere if you want to lock in which version of the twt you are replying to.

I’m not advocating in either direction, btw. I haven’t made up my mind yet. 😅 Just braindumping here.

The (replyto:…) proposal is definitely more in the spirit of twtxt, I’d say. It’s much simpler, anyone can use it even with the simplest tools, no need for any client code. That is certainly a great property, if you ask me, and it’s things like that that brought me to twtxt in the first place.

I’d also say that in our tiny little community, message integrity simply doesn’t matter. Signed feeds don’t matter. I signed my feed for a while using GPG, someone else did the same, but in the end, nobody cares. The community is so tiny, there’s enough “implicit trust” or whatever you want to call it.

If twtxt/Yarn was to grow bigger, then this would become a concern again. But even Mastodon allows editing, so how much of a problem can it really be? 😅

I do have to “admit”, though, that hashes feel better. It feels good to know that we can clearly identify a certain twt. It feels more correct and stable.

Hm.

I suspect that the (replyto:…) proposal would work just as well in practice.

Hey, @movq@www.uninformativ.de, a tiny thing to add to jenny, a -v switch. That way when you twtxt “That’s an older format that was used before jenny version v23.04”, I can go and run jenny -v, and “duh!” myself on the way to a git pull. :-D

@movq@www.uninformativ.de ooooh, nice! commit 62a2b7735749f2ff3c9306dd984ad28f853595c5:

Crawl archived feeds in –fetch-context

Like, very much! :-)

@movq@www.uninformativ.de to paraphrase US Presidents speech on each State of the Union, “the State of the Jenny is strong!” :-D As for the potential upcoming changes, there has to be a knowledgeable head honcho that will agglomerate and coalesce, and guide onto the direction that will be taken. All that with the strong input from the developers that will be implementing the changes, and a lesser (but not less valuable) input from users.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org I call upon the services of the @yarn_police@twtxt.net to further investigate this oddness!

@quark@ferengi.one Oh, sure, it would be nice if edits didn’t break threads. I was just pondering the circumstances under which I get annoyed about data being irrecoverably deleted or otherwise lost.

@falsifian@www.falsifian.org Yeah, delete requests feel very odd.

@falsifian@www.falsifian.org “I don’t really mind if the twt gets edited before I even fetch it.”, right, that’s never the problem. Editing a twtxt before anyone fetches it isn’t even editing, right? :-P The problem we are trying to fix is the havoc is causes editing twtxts that have already been replied to, often ad nauseam. That’s the real problem.

@quark@ferengi.one I don’t really mind if the twt gets edited before I even fetch it. I think it’s the idea of my computer discarding old versions it’s fetched, especially if it’s shown them to me, that bugs me.

But I do like @movq@www.uninformativ.de’s suggestion on this thread that feeds could contain both the original and the edited twt. I guess it would be up to the author.