> Well then what is it?

It's documentation. I've seen a few different licenses be used for
documentation in other people's projects: creative commons, public
domain, GNU free documentation license, there are others.

Do you think code licenses are appropriate for documentation?

What do you use if the answer to "does it matter at all" is "yes"?

Cadence

Looking great. Thanks once again for your contribution!

Looks good now, both "None" and failed sends are solved.

> Are you sure you're supposed to be able to send emails to the todo
> system? This is the first time I'm hearing about this, although this
> also seems to fail on my end.

https://man.sr.ht/todo.sr.ht/#email-access

> Can you show an example email of this?

Sure, here's a screenshot of a public comment in my inbox:
https://cadence.moe/i/6c393e.png

For the last couple of days I have been seeing this when sending email
to the todo system.

> This is the mail system at host mail-b.sr.ht. I'm sorry to have to
> inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more
> recipients. It's attached below.
>
> <~cadence/tube/43@todo.sr.ht>: host todo.sr.ht[173.195.146.145]
> said: 500 Error: (RuntimeError) Working outside of application
> context. (in reply to end of DATA command)

> Final-Recipient: rfc822; ~cadence/tube/43@todo.sr.ht
> Original-Recipient: rfc822;~cadence/tube/43@todo.sr.ht
> Action: failed

Patch applied, thank you very much for your hard work on this!

Thanks very much!

Seems good, thank you so much!

Semi-related: If we wanted to use videojs for dash playback (I _don't_, 
but, just hypothetically) then do we have to serve the streams from the 
same domain as the frontend, or can they be proxied through just the 
selected instance?

Okay, I finally got to review this properly. It looks good.

There is one comment from the previous revision that you did not
address:

> Note that if this were to be used for video streams, you also need
> to forward some headers like `Range` / `Accept-Ranges` /
> `Content-Range`.

If the /proxy route shouldn't be used for video stream proxying, then
I'm still ok to apply this patch. I just need to know that you've made
that decision.

If this is the decision you've made, I'll add a code comment when I