If you end up going with conduit, I would instead use conduwuit. More development effort and better docs IMO. I think maybe even one of the main devs from conduit moved over to conduwuit? But not 100% sure
https://conduwuit.puppyirl.gay/
The domain choice? Eh, not what I would have gone with but to each their own lol
Just to play devils advocate for a minute- Loading from their own domain means they can actually garner quite a bit of information from just the serving of the svg:
Date/time/IP are good enough for getting pretty good estimates of who all uses their software. Doesn’t matter if they are or aren’t using that data- it is being sent to them on their own accord and terms. The public has no way of knowing.
And this is all perfectly acceptable, as long as you do one of the following:
All of this doesn’t really matter if the dev isn’t willing to change anything about the remote image.
But a fork?? Yeah, totally unnecessary. You can take easily care of this at the reverse proxy layer by preventing the svg (or anything else for that matter) from being served. Just serve a 404 or something instead or do a regex replace and remove it altogether from the page prior to serving.
That’s… not how that works. Just because they’re getting separate IP addresses doesn’t mean you can all of the sudden have “full control” and start using privileged ports without granting that sys capability to docker. I fear you are overcomplicating what should be a fairly straightforward process and likely weakening security because you don’t fully grok the implications of the security measures you’re attempting to put in place. Just use traefik or caddy and be done with it.
I’m pretty sure it’s a lot easier than all of that. Account settings -> oauth -> link to oauth. That’s it. Maybe gets more complicated but sounds like that should be it for your use case.