but I send you a PM

Oh, sorry. One of the new features in this dev branch is the ability to disable PMs and mentions. I’ve been running with those turned off. Seems like that feature is working lol.

I turned DMs back on and found the message - will try to join here when I’m back on desktop. Dunno how active I can be right now, but I am eventually going to start on Piefed so would be nice to have a sounding board.

Some of the devs are already working on shared logic/libraries between apps.

Nice!

Oh, I meant just if the instance isn’t know, I thought resolving would make it “aware” of that instance. I could be wrong. But yeah, the instance would have to federate with the other one for it to be able to resolve, though. e.g. it won’t resolve an object from an instance that is on the current instance’s “block” list.

I believe you can, yeah, and I also think that “bootstraps” that instance to yours if it doesn’t already know about it. But in that case, the way I have the search written, it’ll “fall back” to regular search which also does resolveObject. That just takes longer.

The ap_id check is just to short-circuit that behavior to avoid the lengthy, often unnecessary, search and quickly redirect you to your instance’s local copy.

Have had that working for about a week now, and it’s pretty nice. Please do steal this feature lol.

At startup, it calls /api/v3/federated_instances and stores the result to a lookup variable. Then I’ve got a couple of helper functions that accept either an instance ID or a domain name which looks them up from the lookup variable.

Email on your own domain: Yep, super easy.

Email from home IP or from the IPv4 you get assigned with a VPS: Super difficult

I think you would be better served by checking for the Link header

Can’t really do that, client-side, in a browser application. CORS is a perpetual cockblock (though I understand why it is), and I’d rather not make an internal API endpoint to do the lookup.

The application polls Lemmy’s getFederatedInstances API endpoint at startup, so it has a list of every activity pub server your instance knows about. That’s the first and primary check for the URL that’s being searched.

The second check is just to rule out non activity pub URLs that point to a federated instance (e…g. https://lemmy.world/modlog, https://lemm.world/pictrs/image/blah.webp, etc).

Goal isn’t to “catch 'em all” but to catch the most used ones. If there’s one I don’t account for, either by omission or because the federated platform didn’t exist when I made the patterns, then it will just fall back to a regular search which also includes trying to resolve it as a federated URL (which is the current behavior in all prior versions).

The goal is just to simply short-circuit the search behavior if the query is a known ap_id URL in order to avoid a lengthy search process and quickly redirect you to your instance’s local copy.

I’m making an “omnisearch” box.

Paste in an AP_ID into the search field, and it auto-resolves it and redirects you to your instance’s local copy (which is very fast) instead of going through the whole search process (which is slow). To prevent false positives, I’m matching the various ap_id formats and only doing the resolution on those; anything else gets passed to search.

Anything else that falls through the cracks just gets passed to search as usual (which also does a resolveObject lookup).

It’s to make life easier.

We’ve had this discussion :)

This application is written against the Lemmy API. It only speaks API. Eventually it’ll speak Piefed API as well, but right now, only Lemmy API.

Lemmy and Piefed only do server-to-server Activity Pub and not client-to-server AP. Clients have to use the API to interact with them. This is a Lemmy (and eventually Piefed) client.

Cool, thanks. I was close with /user guessing from memory.

I think the /users/.../post_id will be sufficient. It just needs to know that the given URL is an AP_ID before passing it off to the API call to resolveObject. Since it already knows instance.domain.tld is a federated instance, it just needs to see if the path is an AP_ID or the HTML (or something else). Thus, I don’t have to parse the whole thing, just check that enough of it matches.

Thanks!

Good points.

I don’t have a full plan yet (just the general idea of a plan), but when I start the journey to Piefed, it’ll probably be from the ground up or very close to that. I already need to update the codebase from Svelte 4 to Svelte 5 which is a pretty big job due to the fundamental and breaking changes between those two versions.

The components that make up Tesseract (posts, comments, sidebars, everything) are also all heavily tied to Lemmy’s type definitions. To support Piefed, I’d have to de-couple the components in the code from Lemmy’s type def and add in an abstraction layer (both for future-proofing and to make it possible to support both if I wanted to).

Yeah…I’ve had to do a LOT of work client-side in Tesseract to give Lemmy half the features Piefed has. Eventually I’m gonna start targeting Piefed, but there’s some under the hood stuff I’m waiting to be resolved before I embark on that voyage. Mainly, I’ve heard that the main Piefed experience and the API are not 1:1 and not everything is exposed in the API. :(

It doesn’t now, but I’d be willing to add that to Tesseract. Seems easy enough to implement.

Edit: It’s not fully plumbed in yet, but the settings to configure it have been added to the filter policy framework. Will probably also do a similar setting for comments. Shown enabled here, but disabled by default, naturally.

Edit 2: Plumbed in and working now in the dev build. Can also completely hide those, but that doesn’t exactly work for a screenshot.

If you have DB access, the values are in the local_site_rate_limit table. You’ll probably have to restart Lemmy’s API container to pick up any changes if you edit the values in the DB.

100 per second is what I had in my configuration, but you may bump that up to 250 or more if your instance is larger.

One of these days your mom’s gonna stop paying for your Mullvad subscription. Whaddya gonna do then?

Awesome! Win-win.

“Message” bucket is kind of a general purpose bucket that covers a lot of different endpoints. I had to ask the lemmy devs what they were back when I was adding a config section in Tesseract for the rate limits.

These may be a little out of date, but I believe they’re still largely correct:

That’s a consideration, yeah, but they’d have to all be hitting lemmy.zip (your instance) and all from the same /32 IPv4 address.

(AFAIK) CG-NAT still uses port address translation so there’s an upper limit to the number of users behind one IP address. They also are distributed geographically. So everyone would need to be in the same area on the same instance to really have that be an issue.

The more likely scenario would be multiple people in the same IPv4 household using the same instance. But 20 comments per minute, divided by two people in the house would still be 10 comments per minute. That’s still probably more than they could reasonably do.

Edit: You mentioned T-Mobile internet. T-Mobile is pretty much all IPv6 with IPv4 connectivity via CG-NAT. lemmy.zip is also reachable over IPv6, so in that situation,it would try IPv6 first and CG-NAT likely wouldn’t even come into play.

https://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_proxy_module.html

$proxy_add_x_forwarded_for is a built-in variable that either adds to the existing X-Forwarded-For header, if present, or adds the XFF header with the value of the built-in $remote_ip variable.

The former case would be when Nginx is behind another reverse proxy, and the latter case when Nginx is exposed directly to the client.

Assuming this Nginx is exposed directly to the clients, maybe try changing the bottom section like this to use the $remote_addr value for the XFF header. The commented one is just to make rolling back easier. Nginx will need to be reloaded after making the change, naturally.

     # Add IP forwarding headers
      proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr;
      proxy_set_header Host $host;
      # proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for;
      proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $remote_addr;

Yeah, you are setting it, but that’s assuming the variable $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for has the correct IP. But the config itself is correct. Is Nginx directly receiving traffic from the clients, or is it behind another reverse proxy?

Do you have a separate location block for /api by chance, and is the proxy_set_header directive set there, too? Unless I’m mistaken, location blocks don’t inherit that from the / location.

I replied to your other comment, but most likely cause is the API server not getting the correct client IP. If that’s not setup correctly, then it will think every request is from the reverse proxy’s IP and trigger the limit.

Unless they’re broken again. Rate limiting seems to break every few releases, but my instance was on 0.19.12 before I shut it down, and those values worked.