Thanks for pointing out that bahavioural propertry, that was an oversight on my behalf.
However I'm not sure the second proposition is correct, I think the DM paradigm can be defined by; "Direct Messages can only be sent to people who are following (and are not blocked or flagged as protected) me." So I had a play round with two test accounts and came up with this rough-as-guts sudo-truth table: ...............Following B........B Following A.......B can DM A.......A can DM B A FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE the above applies for two accounts who have public scoped accounts. Let me know if you agree/disagree. Cheers for the reply, M On Apr 29, 1:51 pm, Abraham Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > It is unidirectional. Account_a has to follow account_b for account_b to > send a DM to account_a. Account_b does *not* need to be following account_a > to send a DM to account_a. This gets a little murky when protected accounts > are involved. > > Take a look > at:http://apiwiki.twitter.com/Twitter-REST-API-Method%3A-friendships-exists > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 21:11, Mark Sievers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello All, > > > So a Friend(someone I am following) can only be Direct Messaged when > > they are also following me, ie the relationship is bidirectional. > > > These two lists can be aquired using statuses/friends and statuses/ > > followers. However is there a way (without using an O(n2) loop) to > > find the intersection of these two sets, ie people that can be direct > > messaged? > > > (This information must be available in a remote location, so this > > processing is required up front) > > > Thanks > > > M > > -- > Abraham Williams |http://the.hackerconundrum.com > Hacker |http://abrah.am|http://twitter.com/abraham > Web608 | Community Evangelist |http://web608.org > This email is: [ ] blogable [x] ask first [ ] private. > Sent from Madison, WI, United States
