hmm I see `@npub…` in the source, Nostur shouldn’t generate it like that, probably because it was pasted? It should work if its pasted as `nostr:npub…`
I’ll check if I can make it work for `@npub…` too
nostr:npub1n0sturny6w9zn2wwexju3m6asu7zh7jnv2jt2kx6tlmfhs7thq0qnflahe we published the daily Nostr Report using Nostur today for the first time. It seems that the people we tagged in the report didn’t receive notifications that they were tagged. I also noticed that with today’s report, many of the tagged users rendered like this (left side of screenshot) vs. how they appear when we publish using Damus (right side of screenshot, from yesterday’s report). Did we use the wrong format for tagging users in Nostur? We used @npub format. Thanks! 
Discussion
Ah that makes sense. Yea we prepare the post in a document and then paste into the client to publish. We’ve always done it as @npub because that was the only way Damus used to recognize it months ago. But at some point Damus changed so now it automatically converts @npub to nostr:npub when you publish. So even though we paste it from our form as @npub it’s never been an issue until now when we tried publishing with a different client. Is nostr:npub the preferred format when we paste in Nostur? We can also change our form to format it that way.
yes nostr:npub is preferred but I’ll make it work with `@npub` too