#cweiskeES performance: keep-alive did not change anything. replacing an does-document-exists query with a get-document query shrinked time for document with some hundred urls from 18s to 1.5s
#cweiske.. and with a HEAD query to get-document to 1s
#aaronpkbtw in case it wasn't obvious, the fact that this uses a database is only a temporary measure right now
#aaronpkit's actually supposed to be reading the log files from disk, but I didn't finish migrating all the logs before I launched newloqi and this site
#tantekalright, this is probably worth sharing openly here since it was just (yesterday released) OS X security update to patch a pretty bad vulnerability: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207130
#aaronpki will merge/release that later but in the middle of something else right now
#tantek.comedited /annotation (+145) "link to use-cases, separate News Genius page, silo vs other examples, specific Criticism subhead, link to WG, note CG was previous" (view diff)
#aaronpk"The last missing piece: one of the best features about dynamic blogs is the ability to drag-and-drop images right into a post." ... "I fixed this by hacking together a simple service which lets me drag-and-drop images and automatically upload them to my server. The site gives you back a URL and a markdown image tag ready to use."
#aaronpkthat sounds similar to the idea of the micropub media endpoint
#voxpellitantek: at work we build our site with React and it works fully without js (and actually doesn't yet or ever use React on frontend – not yet needed in any way)
rMdes and tantek joined the channel
#tanteksnarfed, targets, sending, receiving, is this about /Webmention ?
#snarfeddmaczka sknebel: rejecting doesn't have to be synchronous. you can return a sync 202 and still reject later, out of band
#tantekre: redirect responsibilities, I think it tends to fall more on the receiver than the sender, EXCEPT for webmention endpoint discovery, which I think the sender MUST follow reidrects
#tantekone example is shortdomains. you may have multiple URLs for a post (short domain, long) and a sender may try to webmention any of them as the target
#snarfedalso, on the receiver side, "check that target is a valid resource for which it can accept Webmentions" is generally expected to be internal. ie you're the receiving site, you know your pages, you can check whether a URL is for a page or for something else that would redirect without making an HTTP request to yourself
#aaronpkfrom my understanding of the question, it's also a matter of whether you want to accept webmentions for short URLs that you didn't create that point to your post
#sknebelsnarfed: sure, but if it is an external URL you can't tell internally
#aaronpki'm not actually sure i'd *want* to accept those webmentions, but not 100% sure on that
#dmaczkatantek, yep, that's how this started, I was testing my webmention sender/receiver, had been using a nice happy source/target, then tried on a tweet I made linking back to a post, but of course twitter shortened my url
#tanteksnarfed, is this primarily a silo problem then? Twitter, Tumblr, FB?
#snarfeddmaczka: yes but bridgy is careful to follow (unwrap) all urls to be nice to receivers
#tantekI'm more interested in the indie to indie case
#aaronpktantek: probably primarily, although i just gave you an indieweb example that I actually did!
#tantekwhere the source post uses its own URL shortener for all outbound links
#snarfedyeah, primarily but not solely. people manually link with short urls too. just not globally like twitter, tumblr, some wp.com, etc
#dmaczkasnarfed: but doesn't that negate the reason for including target in the webmention in the first place: to make it easy for receiver to scan the source for it?
#tantekso the question is how does a receiver verify that?
#aaronpktantek: no that's about following the e.g. t.co redirect
#sknebeltantek: sorry, wrong context. I meant for just checking if the URL redirects to my page at the end
#snarfedi actually doubt *any* current wm receivers follow redirects on target urls. bridgy for blogs doesn't.
#tantekok. but the sender still has to set the *target* to the literal link that is in the *source* right?
#aaronpkit's like if I send a webmention that looks like source=aaronpk.com/foo target=t.co/12345 where t.co/12345 actually redirects to tantek.com/foo, I still need to have t.co/12345 in my post.
#tantekso for a tweet source, you'd have to set the target to the tco URL
#snarfedwordpress's webmention plugin doesn't (follow target redirects). iirc known doesn't.
#aaronpkbecause it's meant to support receiving for multiple domains on your same account
#aaronpkbut that actually probably means following redirects on the target is more important
#aaronpkbecause right now there are likely "orphaned" webmentions sitting there
#tantekyeah - that's what I was wondering - does it provide both pre and post following redirects on the target
#dmaczkaanother complication... so say the target is a t.co/foo... does my receiving server save that, or the expanded target uri for the purposes of later detecting when a webmention is re-sent?
#snarfedheh, that snarfed.org post is a timeless classic. one of my all time faves.
#aaronpkhm looks like the t.co didn't end up with any verified webmentions on it
#snarfedhey btw GWG while you're here, any idea why my WP site isn't sending webmentions? it's using the wm plugin at git repo head. hasn't sent them for months now. nothing relevant in the debug log. :(
#snarfedsknebel: definitely! just hasn't been a priority. this conversation here is more than i've thought about it in years :P
#sknebelnow I wonder if there is value in randomly re-evaluating old WMs every now and then (like, one every night or every few hours) to automate that and clean up dead links
#sknebel(which would be a reason to store the target-URL)
#snarfedsknebel: what would you do when you find a dead link?
#sknebelsnarfed: good question, not sure what my personal preference would be
#sknebeleither treat it as delete (but on the other hand our convention is explicit delete with 410, but not all external sites do that of course), or hide the mention?
#gRegorLoveThough that's after verification, and verification checks if the hostname matches, so it would always fail if target=t.co/foo
#KevinMarksHm, an outbound redirection might be a good idea for link rot
#aaronpkNot really. Might as well just change the URL in your post once you detect link rot
#aaronpkTho an outbound redirect would let you capture that functionality in an external service
#tantekor on your own page, because you could detect (like Google does) if someone clicks on a link on your page, and then quickly goes *back* to your page
#tantekthat's a good red flag to use as an indicator that the link they clicked on is broken
#tantek(you don't need every user to do that - i.e. folks that just open tabs - as long as even *a few* users do the click / go back, you can use it)