silverpill@mitra.social nice job! Congratulations on the release now you must maintain it for free forever.

rood@aus.social that... is actually not a bad idea If every account exposed their time zone, then your client or server could simply delay the post the appropriate amount until it's your time zone... 10pm their time, shows up 10pm your time. oooooh.

feditips@social.growyourown.services ahaldorsen@tutoteket.no feel free to reach out if you have trouble setting up or administering NodeBB. We're on the fediverse, and happy to be here!

trwnh@mastodon.social before, I was not sending Accept at all, now I am sending application/jrd+json.

Hey rimu@piefed.social thanks for responding (and sorry for the late reply!) I am not married to the Announce([Article|Note|Page]) approach, so I am definitely open to Create([Article|Note|Page]) with a back-reference. I think I went the former direction because there is a known fallback mechanism — the Announce is treated as a share/boost/repost as normal. However, sending the Create also is fine I think. However, do we need a backreference? In my limited research, it seems that Piefed, et al. picks the first Group actor and associates the post with that community. If I sent over a Create(Article) with two Group actors addressed, could Piefed associate the post with the first, and initiate a cross-post with the remaining Group actors? Secondly, is how to handle sync. 1b12 relies on communities having reciprocal followers in order for two-way synchronization to be established. On my end since I know it is cross-posted I will now send 1b12 activities to cross-posted communities, but can Piefed, et al. send 1b12 activities back as well, in the absence of followers? cc andrew_s@piefed.social nutomic@lemmy.ml melroy@kbin.melroy.org bentigorlich@gehirneimer.de

@evan@cosocial.ca hmm. I agree in the sense that any combination of recipients can be addressed, but the specific term "follower only" (to the exclusion of the public pseudo-user) isn't AP specific... could be wrong on that one. Either way I do think it's a good courtesy to assume equal or narrower visibility when replying to any post. The specific issue you outlined in OP seems to be a Mastodon bug for sure.

Angus, while I haven't made the appropriate changes to NodeBB's implementation yet, I did draft an FEP including the changes we discussed. https://github.com/julianlam/feps/blob/main/fep/15c5/fep-15c5.md It is not PR'd upstream yet, but I will do so in the coming days unless there are some concerns.