Nice, I recently went through the same struggle of setting up this configuration based on that LinuxServer post. My main nitpick on this is that automating the ip route configuration for the qBittorrent container is a pretty important step which is not explained in the post. Leaving any manual steps in any Docker setup is pretty bad practice.

Since you’re using LinuxServer’s QBT image a good way to do this is to make use of their standard custom init scripts. You can just mount a script with the ip route commands to /custom-cont-init.d/my-routes.sh:ro on the container and it will be run automatically on each startup.

Another nitpick is that the PostDown commands in the wireguard configs are useless since you’re running them in Docker.

I indeed have a domain name pointing to the VPS IP, with Caddy managing TLS. Other apps are exposed this way, and I will do the same for the qBittorrent WebUI as well. I like having Caddy as a single gateway where I can apply security configs and monitor all traffic, I was hoping I would be able to pass torrent traffic through it as well but everybody seems very much against it.

I already have wireguard setup as you describe so I guess I’ll just give up on passing torrent traffic through the proxies and just open a localhost port on the qBittorrent container…

Resetting the “time since last being told I don’t know shit on the internet” back to 0 once again…

I already have an existing and working setup used for other apps, it’s close to the one described in this blogpost. Yes, it’s complicated and inefficient, but it has reasons to be. I want to keep my qBittorrent configuration as close to this setup as reasonably possible for consistency. If your point is that it’s counterproductive to follow this setup then… fair enough. I can just route traffic from the VPS to an exposed port on the local qBittorrent container over Wireguard, but that wasn’t my preferred solution.

Running a torrent client through a proxy doesn’t isolated a process.

I was talking about network isolation, not process isolation.

make sure your traffic is routing there properly

That was pretty much what I was asking for help with.

I’m guessing what you mean is setting up port forwarding in Wireguard…

The thing is ideally I would want all connections in and out of my homeserver’s Docker network to go through the local Caddy proxy, so the app containers are isolated. That still means having at least the local Caddy acting as a TCP proxy, even if the VPS Caddy is bypassed. If that’s too much of a hassle though I can instead just expose a port on the qBittorrent container directly to the homeserver’s localhost, and forward that with wireguard to the VPS.

Thank you for the links, I had found a few of these but some are new. The basic idea is there, I’ll see if any of these can work for us. I’m growing more convinced though that hosting a whole app for this super simple use case might not be worth it, I think we might pivot to just hosting a really basic static page for it.

It’s pretty overkill for what we need, and it would still fall under “corporate” for us. At that point I could just go for the static Notion page which I can get live in 5m for free.

We can set up all of those but again, that’s kinda expensive for us rn. What’s the benefit of using a CMS like Joomla versus wishthis, or even a basic Caddy/Nginx webserver with a static page?

They’re insufferable commies who keep attacking other parts of the Fediverse by… uh… commenting on posts and… ehm… responding aggressively to bigoted content. They’ve got all these sick ass stickers that we don’t and they keep flexing them in our replies which drives me crazy.

Their instance is an authoritarian distopia where queer people feel safe and they don’t waste time debating the same wrong liberal talking points every time. Also you can just call someone a dumbass if you disagree with them: a totalitarian nightmare.

Worst of all they go around straight up bullying other Fediverse users: right now I’m locked in a bathroom stall that a Hexbear user shoved me into. I’ve been here for an hour missing my maths class, and I’ve had to drink the toilet water. My tummy is starting to hurt. Stay away from Hexbear users…

This is such an amazing article, The Verge’s staff is still capable of some excellent journalism.

Support for this in core Lemmy has been discussed many times. There’s an open issue for it that’s been gathering dust for a while. Some apps already implement this on the client side I think, not jerboa though.

Other people in that thread have pointed out that it isn’t showing posts being delivered to Threads despite the block. That should be testable with other instances, but not Threads since it’s not receiving any content from Mastodon at the moment. The concerning thing there is the user still being able to view content from people they’ve blocked, but that seems to be a bug if it’s reproducible.

In the EU companies can’t scrape personally identifiable information without consent, even if it’s already publicly available. IANAL, and there’s probably ways they can sneak around the GDPR, but at least it’s not a free for all. It’s unclear though how it works for federation. It’s definitely not the same legally though.

The reason for not directly federating content to Threads isn’t so nobody there can ever see my amazing posts, it’s so Meta can’t easily profile me. Scraping public posts on a different platform would probably be illegal, at least in the EU, and reposts don’t give them a lot of data about me. Federating content, however, would give them most of the same data that Mastodon has on me without even having to ask.

This post from Eugen Rochko mentions that blocking Threads at the user level “stops your posts from being delivered to or fetched by Threads”. Basically, the user-level instance block is bidirectional.

Limited federation mode is a different feature, at the admin level. It doesn’t really affect the delivery of posts in either direction, it just hides the blocked instance’s content from the global feed. Defederation on the other hand is indeed bidirectional, but again it’s on the admin level rather than users’.

Mastodon instance blocks are already bidirectional AFAIK: if you block an instance your content does not get federated with them. I was actually surprised that this does not seem to be the case for Lemmy. I don’t think this break any core abstraction of AP…

Oh yeah, you’re right on that. If I’m looking for privacy from the subscription manager signing up with a service like this is a terrible choice, because it is fully a financial institution.

I wish they were all on the same day of the month…

Dates aren’t a big concern though. What I was hoping for is something that would update automatically to some extent if (say) some amounts change, or a payment is missed. But I guess indeed that’s basically impossible without access to my payment data.

Given that I have to update it manually though, I would at least like it to be synced remotely. So that I can, say, check it from my laptop on a webpage or desktop app without redoing all the manual data input.

For my use case yes, that would defeat the purpose, but for what it’s trying to do it kinda makes sense… At least, they have to do it to comply with payment regulations. And you’re still only exposing your identity to one service with a decent reputation, rather than plenty of possibly shadier ones. It seems like a fair tradeoff if what you’re looking for is privacy from services you want to pay for.

I’m not American, it seems to be available in the US only…

I guess you’re right, yeah. I was hoping someone had figured out a different solution, perhaps integrating directly with the individual subscription providers. But I guess that’s way too broad of a scope, integrating with countless individual services.

At least a cross-platform, cloud backed “spreadsheet” would be nice to have though.