Roman

@szarkowicz Hi, were you able to implement this approach?

@sido420 This is interesting idea. It would be definitely useful to have such feature in some cases.

@sido420 Yeah, I think so. Community would appreciate it. Let us know if you started to implement it, so nobody else does the same in parallel. Thanks.

@sido420 `_timeoutId` contains data we can't use really. Every key should re-create a timer with `setTimeout` function depending on `_expiresAt` and set `_timeoutId`. So you could remove `_timeoutId` from dump.

@goldbergyoni @rluvaton Hi, first of all, it is good this PR is going to remove outdated `express-jwt-blacklist`. I would pay attention to next: 1. 6.11 title says `Support blocklisting JWTs`,...

@josh-hemphill 2. > the number of logged out or terminated user sessions is extremely small, small enough that it's practical to just ad-hoc push any denylist updates to all your...

@AdamPflug Hi, you could use [rate-limiter-flexible](https://github.com/animir/node-rate-limiter-flexible) package as underlying core. [rate-limiter-flexible](https://github.com/animir/node-rate-limiter-flexible) provides a lot of features. It also provides a middleware [ExpressBruteFlexible](https://github.com/animir/node-rate-limiter-flexible/wiki/ExpressBrute-migration) similar to ExpressBrute with the same options built...

@AdamPflug 1. yes, some work would be required on both packages. And it would be good for both. You can develop the second version from scratch without compatibility with v1....

As I see users of this package still suffer because of updates absence. @flipvh and anyone who wants to keep the logic of this package could migrate to [ExpressBruteFlexible](https://github.com/animir/node-rate-limiter-flexible/wiki/ExpressBrute-migration) from...

@huntr-helper There is already solution for this, use [ExpressBruteFlexible](https://github.com/animir/node-rate-limiter-flexible/wiki/ExpressBrute-migration) instead.