OK, I transitioned from talking about deleting messages from a mailbox to deleting messages from the DB, but you get the point. There are other actions, which are associated with receiving messages in a mailbox, which are not reversible- sending email, sending an http post request...
I'm also using interchangeable mailbox, inbox and timeline here. On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: > There are counterexamples- when you send out an email, it's in the > inbox of the people you have sent it to and you cannot delete it. When > you send a message in an instant messaging client, you cannot get it > back. In the context of JIRA, the item can still change after > permission is denied to you, while the message cannot be reedited in > ESME. > > I'm with Dick here. The performance problem is that the stream of > messages is updated in near real-time and any deleted messages will > cause a cascade of changes across the inboxes of all users who have > linked this message. > > I think we discussed deleting messages before, not in the context of > this pool, and David strongly favored the opinion that messages should > be immutable- once they're sent, that's it. Deleting messages also > poses security/consistency issues with possible federation scenarios, > which David intended to implement. > > There are many many other inconsistency issues which could arise if we > start deleting messages. Take for example, resending. If a resent > message is deleted, do you delete it from the inboxes of all your > followers? And if it's a popular resent message, do you delete it from > the stats actor? Do you reevaluate all the statistics for resent > messages then? What if the message contains tags, do you reevaluate > the tag cloud? What if it contains links, which are in the popular > links stats? What if the message is part of a conversation, do you > delete the whole conversation? > > So in the end, the immutability of messages and timelines is already > deeply ingrained in the ESME architecture and is not subject to > change- even if we decide that it's wise to do so, which I think it's > not. It's far from a trivial change. > > Vassil > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Xuefeng Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >> If user could not see any message from a pool which he/she leave, even >> his/her message, What will happen? >> In a company, If some one leave a team/project/department, he/she may be >> could not read any document even he/she write. >> >> The messages are also some resource for a team/project/department, I think >> it's fine that do not allow users can not read any messages in the pool. >> >> Think about jira, if you create a issue(task, defects) and the permission >> said only team members. >> And if you leave the team, you can not read the issue anymore. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Regarding the first part (deleting users from a pool) - here are my ideas >>> * We have no idea whether he has viewed the messages or not. >>> * Of course, he should be able to continue see his own messages even >>> if they were sent to a pool to which he no longer belongs. >>> * The user's messages remain in the pool whether or not the user is in the >>> pool. >>> * Since the user can no longer view the pool, he can only view his own >>> messages but not those of other users. >>> * Question: Should we delete all old messages from the pool to which >>> the user was a member or should we just prevent new messages from the >>> now-forbidden pool going to the user. I prefer the second choice. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> To the second point regarding the deletion of pools. I think this >>> needs more thought. We can't / shouldn't delete messages from closed >>> pools. This would be a performance and programming nightmare. >>> >>> D. >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Xuefeng Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > There're two features:1. delete users from pool; >>> > 2. delete pool. >>> > >>> > There're some argue and my opinion: >>> > *when delete users from pool.* >>> > We could withdraw all messages from the user, whatever read or unread. >>> > >>> > *when delete pool. ESME-68* >>> > withdraw all messages >>> > can create new pool which have the same name as deleted >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> > Should we allow for a user to be deleted from an access pool? >>> >> > >>> >> > If yes what happens? Does he no longer have access to the messages in >>> >> > the pool - irregardless of whether he wrote them or not? >>> >> >>> >> It should be possible to delete a user, yes. I think it has been >>> >> discussed or specified in the requirements pdf that once a message is >>> >> in the user's mailbox, it stays there, so that's how it works now. At >>> >> any rate, deleting a message from the mailbox, which the user may have >>> >> already seen doesn't offer any more security. A user also doesn't see >>> >> messages in his/her mailbox, which were sent before he was added to >>> >> the pool. >>> >> >>> >> The interesting part is what happens if a pool has been removed and >>> >> whether it should be possible at all. This could pose a security >>> >> problem if an impostor creates a pool with the same name (similar to >>> >> what might happen with a deleted user account) >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Global R&D Center,Shanghai China,Carestream Health, Inc. >>> > Tel:(86-21)3852 6101 >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Global R&D Center,Shanghai China,Carestream Health, Inc. >> Tel:(86-21)3852 6101 >> >
