Based on a recent discussion about the sharedInbox capabilities of #GoActivityPub servers, I had to go back and revisit the logic to make sure it conforms to the spec to the level that I said it does.
Well, after a closer look, I gotta say there were bugs. For example blocked relationships were not checked, so if either the activity actor had blocked one of the sharedInbox recipients, or vice-versa, they still received the activity.
Now this is fixed, but it introduced quite a large number of additional checks in what's already a pretty storage intensive mechanism. I think I need to step back for a moment and reevaluate.
