ref: "A static, manual system for receiving webmentions (and pingback) with nginx" http://superkuh.com/blog/2020-01-10-1.html
https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-webmention-20170112/#h-receiv...
I was wondering if I should've sent this comment as a webmention instead but I guess old habits die hard.
On Pelican, you can do it using this plugin https://chezsoi.org/lucas/blog/pelican-pingback-and-webmenti...
(Also annoying if the link is added client-side.)
> Upon receipt of a POST request containing the source and target parameters, the receiver SHOULD verify the parameters (see Request Verification below) and then SHOULD queue and process the request asynchronously, to prevent DoS attacks.
https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-webmention-20170112/
Though, probably, this won't happen in practice. So better to be careful.
My concern here is spam. With hindsight both Pingback and Trackbacks (which Pingback was a response to) essentially became APIs fit spammers to add junk to your site. Can webmention avoid the sane fate?
The README says that one of the steps is verification [https://github.com/converspace/webmention/blob/master/README...], but it's a little disappointing that it's essentially an "exercise left for the reader".
If you’ve written a blog post that references or links to another blog post, Webmention is the standard way to notify them.
An example use case for Webmentions is blog comments. A blog may publish a post which is a reply to another blog, then send a Webmention to notify them. The author of the blog post being replied to could choose to display the comment below their post.
Examples of the latter would be spam (as mentioned elsewhere above), and coordination problems when trying to upgrade the standard in potentially backwards-incompatible ways. Hopefully the continued adoption of Webmention will prove that these risks are manageable.
