@andros@twtxt.andros.dev maybe create a separate, completely distinct feed for DM? That way, clients do not need to do anything, only those wanted to “talk in private” follow themselves, using their very special dm-only.txt feeds. 😂

@bender@twtxt.net YES PLEASE!

@bender@twtxt.net @aelaraji@aelaraji.com The client should ignore twts if it’s not compatible or not addressed to me. it’s a simple regex to add! It’s similar to Twt Hash Extension, should they be in another file? They are child messages, not flat twt. Not of course!

@andros@twtxt.andros.dev define “compatible” 😅. On the “not addressed to me”, if I follow you, I will see your twtxts, whether they are addressed to me, or not.

@bender@twtxt.net For example:

If you can see this twt in any feed…

xxxx-xx-xxTxx:xx:xxZ	!<bender https://twtxt.net/user/bender/twtxt.txt> U2FsdGVkX1+QmwBNmk9Yu9jvazVRFPS2TGJRGle/BDDzFult6zCtxNhJrV0g+sx0EIKbjL2a9QpCT5C0Z2qWvw==

It is for you. Any other possibility must be ignore (hidden in your timeline).

If your client doesn’t have the posibility to decrypt the twt, hide all direct message. It is all :)

@andros@twtxt.andros.dev I give you not creating another file, but then I’d vote for commenting out DMs. See https://eapl.me/timeline/post/z5e2bna

It’s easier to find the DM in comments from your side, than asking all the client maintainers to add the regex =P
You can even use a Modified comment, such as
#! <DM content>
Or something like that

This approach is retro-compatible with current and older clients.

After reading you, @eapl.me@eapl.me, I’ll tell you my point of view.
In my opinion, a feed does not have to be equivalent to a timeline. A timeline is a representation of the feed adapted to a user. You may not be interested in seeing other people’s threads or DMs. But perhaps they are interested in seeing mentions or DMs directed at them. It is important not to fall into the trap. With that clarification…
I insist, this is my point of view, it is not an absolute truth: I don’t think extensions should be respectful of customers who are no longer maintained.
We cannot have a system that is simple, backwards compatible and extensible all at the same time. We have to give up some of the 3 points. I would not like to give up simplicity because it will then make it harder to maintain the customers who do stay. Therefore, I think it is better to give up backwards compatibility and play with new formulas in the extensions. I don’t think it’s a good idea to make a hash keep so much load: a hashtag, a thread and also a DM.

@andros@twtxt.andros.dev Some good points here that I share and empathize with 🙌

@prologic@twtxt.net Thanks @prologic@twtxt.net !

by commenting out DMs are you giving up on simplicity? See the Metadata extension holding the data inside comments, as the client doesn’t need to show it inside the timeline.

I don’t think that commenting out DMs as we are doing for metadata is giving up on simplicity (it’s a feature already), and it helps to hide unwanted DMs to clients that will take months to add it’s support to something named… an extension.

For some other extensions in https://twtxt.dev/extensions.html (for example the reply-to hash #abcdfeg or the mention @ < example http://example.org/twtxt.txt >) is not a big deal. The twt is still understandable in plain text.
For DM, it’s only interesting for you if you are the recipient, otherwise you see an scrambled message like 1234567890abcdef=. Even if you see it, you’ll need some decryption to read it. I’ve said before that DMs shouldn’t be in the same section that the timeline as it’s confusing.

So my point stands, and as I’ve said before, we are discussing it as a community, so let’s see what other maintainers add to the convo.