| 22 May 2025 |
 Zhaofeng Li | (i.e., blocked applied by homeserver admins, not room admins) | 07:21:27 |
| Zhaofeng Li | * (i.e., blocks applied by homeserver admins, not room admins) | 07:22:57 |
 f0x | In reply to @zhaofeng:zhaofeng.li
I was thinking of activitypub/mastodon-style bans - you don't need to add the blocklist to each room and just ignore anything with a sender from the blocked homeservers I think the best you could do is automatically setting server-acl (ish) things on all rooms your users have permission to. There's a fundamental difference with ActivityPub in how a block needs to affect other users/servers: AP servers are free to not send events to arbitrary other servers, and hide/drop events from blocked servers, but this approach doesn't work well in a shared chatroom, especially when it needs server cooperation to arrive at a shared room state | 07:28:59 |
| f0x | In reply to @gnu_ponut:matrix.org
@f0x:pixie.town https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/4124 right, that's less about homeserver bans though, and rather a mechanism to allow for pre-screening? | 07:31:14 |
 Gnuxie 💜🐝 | In reply to @f0x:pixie.town
right, that's less about homeserver bans though, and rather a mechanism to allow for pre-screening? it's both | 07:31:36 |
| f0x |
We will embed m.server.knock_rule in m.room.create if it someone raises
small error 'it someone'
| 07:31:37 |
| Gnuxie 💜🐝 | oki | 07:32:19 |
| f0x | In reply to @gnu_ponut:matrix.org
it's both ah yeah, by making it explicit which servers are allowed to interact with the room | 07:34:24 |
