Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Federation #4

Closed
ArtificialOwl opened this issue Sep 25, 2018 · 9 comments
Closed

Federation #4

ArtificialOwl opened this issue Sep 25, 2018 · 9 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Milestone

Comments

@ArtificialOwl
Copy link
Member

How to manage federation ?

  • Admin add federated instance of Nextcloud to a list
  • every one can federated and share
  • both with option
@ArtificialOwl ArtificialOwl added the question Further information is requested label Sep 25, 2018
@MorrisJobke
Copy link
Member

cc @rullzer @schiessle

@rullzer
Copy link
Member

rullzer commented Sep 25, 2018

This is different from the default federation right?

I would say: trusted servers for federation of nextcloud things should be trusted by default. For the rest just a whitelist I guess?

Or does it have some kind of protocol to exchange secrets as well?

@ArtificialOwl
Copy link
Member Author

Once your nextcloud is compatible with ActivityPub, anyone with an ActivityPub account can send you a message: there is no need to be on the same social network or to create any link between instances. Also, the spreading of your new instance is fast enough when you start following people on other instance of a social network.
If someone you're following is posting on @mastoson.social, it will be displayed in your account @rullzer@cloud.nextcloud.com. Your local public post can also end-up on the federated timeline of Mastodon.

I don't know yet if you can encrypt message, but because you're using a pair of keys to authenticate your activity, you might be able to encrypt content too.

So, should we stay public or filter the incoming/outgoing message ? My guess is that an option to setup your Social app from Public to Private-with-a-list-of-federated-cloud would be the best. Now it's true we could use/merge the list from federated share.

@jancborchardt
Copy link
Member

This should be possible without specific allowing. If I want to follow @anne@testcloud.com then I should be able to do that and not have it vetted by the admin.

But yes, we could have a default allowlist which is basically populated by the "trusted servers" in federation, which could make the contacts from there load quicker. And a denylist which could be filled by an admin to block specific instances.

@juliusknorr juliusknorr added enhancement New feature or request and removed question Further information is requested labels Nov 30, 2018
@jancborchardt jancborchardt added this to the 0.1 🥚 milestone Dec 3, 2018
@juliusknorr
Copy link
Member

Right now we allow every remote server, right @daita

@jancborchardt I guess we should move that to 0.2, so we add a proper setting for whitelisting servers there.

@jancborchardt jancborchardt modified the milestones: 0.1 🥚, 0.2 🐣 Dec 3, 2018
@jancborchardt
Copy link
Member

Yup, allowlist and blocklist for 0.2 seems good.

@schiessle
Copy link
Member

I think by default we should allow to follow everyone on every server. But imho there should be a admin setting to limit it to users on the server only so that you can also use it as an internal social network for your organization only.

@jancborchardt
Copy link
Member

@schiessle yes, that's the simple first step setting. But it is also necessary to have the ability to be part of the federation while still having a blocklist for specific servers, e.g. if they carry hateful or illegal content.

@ArtificialOwl
Copy link
Member Author

done in alpha 2.0

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants