I implemented webmentions for my static site back around the end of 2019. My solution for receiving on my static site was to just log POSTs and review them with my eyes. Then if someone has actually sent a webmention (as opposed to pingback spam) I just use curl to respond. There's no need to have anything automated at all.
Just to correct your blog post, the Webmentions spec says in this scenario where you're just logging, you "MUST" return a 202 Accepted. I went through a similar phase (logsink with 204) which I corrected recently.
Comments
I implemented webmentions for my static site back around the end of 2019. My solution for receiving on my static site was to just log POSTs and review them with my eyes. Then if someone has actually sent a webmention (as opposed to pingback spam) I just use curl to respond. There's no need to have anything automated at all.
ref: "A static, manual system for receiving webmentions (and pingback) with nginx" http://superkuh.com/blog/2020-01-10-1.html
Just to correct your blog post, the Webmentions spec says in this scenario where you're just logging, you "MUST" return a 202 Accepted. I went through a similar phase (logsink with 204) which I corrected recently.
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.
That's what OP originally did as well.