Ah ok I appreciate the information. Seems like kind of a shit way to handle federating bans.
Just out of curiosity, does that mean your instance could choose to not enforce bans from other instances or am I misunderstanding how ban federation works? Before it seemed like the home instance would accept votes and comments and they would be rejected by the remote instance, but had a chance to successfully federate with third instances. Now it seems as if the home instance is doing that enforcement directly. Is that correct?
On several occasions I have held conversations with third instance users on .ml threads while I was site banned from .ml. I am trying to drill down into the technical changes whereby bans now actually “reject” comments and votes, seemingly from the home instance, compared to the previous behavior
We’re running it as well, I’ve seen it on our end as well iirc
Ah ok I appreciate the information. Seems like kind of a shit way to handle federating bans.
Just out of curiosity, does that mean your instance could choose to not enforce bans from other instances or am I misunderstanding how ban federation works? Before it seemed like the home instance would accept votes and comments and they would be rejected by the remote instance, but had a chance to successfully federate with third instances. Now it seems as if the home instance is doing that enforcement directly. Is that correct?
No the site ban still worked. This ban per community is mostly to be able to remove their content when banned as it otherwise doesn’t trigger.
On several occasions I have held conversations with third instance users on .ml threads while I was site banned from .ml. I am trying to drill down into the technical changes whereby bans now actually “reject” comments and votes, seemingly from the home instance, compared to the previous behavior