jeff

yup. there should also be clear requirements backoff with refetches here too to prevent servers that arent serving this endpoint from being spammed hard.

or... perhaps use a DNS record to opt out of this that admins can set to prevent their server being hit. without notice.

fair.

> I get the idea and I think it's a good one. in general, it does first sound great. however protocol extensions like these that allow arbitrary free form data...

> Could you elaborate? Are you referring to the `event.content` field? I feel as though this statement is extremely broad. yes, as provided in the changeset: >The `.content` of these...

On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 15:18:14 -0800 Sandwich ***@***.***> wrote: > > as a rule of thumb, when designing protocols, places that people > > can tack on arbitrary junk...

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 02:58:46 -0800 Sandwich ***@***.***> wrote: > [majestrate](https://github.com/majestrate) > > > `event.content` fields are not validated by relays, so **should** > > cannot be **must**. >...

i reviewed this NIP a bit more with the benefits and drawbacks presented here. having`event.content` as optional free form data does seem like the lesser of evils here. please disregard...

> Note to anyone still looking at this: I gave up on having this upstreamed due to the above conversations. But if you still want to continue this you're welcome...

> > > Note to anyone still looking at this: I gave up on having this upstreamed due to the above conversations. But if you still want to continue this...