A note that the ForumWG meeting is scheduled to begin shortly: https://meet.jit.si/ap-forum-wg

@thisismissem@hachyderm.io ah understood. I didn't quite get how the fund worked, but it makes more sense now (and is much simpler—organizationally—for Nivenly!) I don't think we'll add exclusions for security fund recipients I would say, though, that one of the requirements has to be that the affected software accepts the vulnerability. Plenty of self-proclaimed "security researchers" have filed reports, and some go as far as to publish CVEs (against our own software!) without our permission. Quite the opposite of responsible disclosure.

@obenland@mastodon.social wonderful, good work!

Let's clarify something here. Mastodon follower only posts don't have the "public pseudo user" addressed, do they? That's the important piece that this whole thing hinges upon If it is present, Mastodon is a fault. If not, Pixelfed messed up. No?

@julian yes we've had this for 6+ months

@mario@hub.somaton.com thanks, I tested that payload and it successfully edited the post, so at least from the payload point of view there is no issue. Perhaps there is a problem with the http signature on update? Is that handled differently than a create?

@eeeee I believe LemmyBB was a proof-of-concept, to show that Lemmy as it existed back then was able to be represented in the front-end as a tradtional forum. But also, nutomic (who may have made LemmyBB? not sure.) is a busy person who has a day job and doesn't work on lemmy full-time