I agree with the solution of just removing those links that originate in pools.
D. On 8/31/10, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, I think this is a worse example, because there are many ways to > find a list of URLs in a wiki (which were generally just not designed > with privacy/security in mind). > > If you're willing to sacrifice convenience for security, the easiest > change is not to parse URLs in messages in pools- it will appear as > normal text, not as a hyperlink. The next thing we can do is set up a > different type of URL which doesn't take you to the shortened URL, but > directly to the target URL. > > If one really insists on shortening URLs in pools, then there must be > one set of shortened URLs per pool. I don't think anyone will claim > that this idea makes sense. > > Vassil > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: >> I agree in theory with your assessment of the google docs situation, >> but I still think we're violating the expectation of security around >> pools. >> >> Take another example: An HR department is using a secure wiki to >> discuss and organize an upcoming layoff. The wiki page is titled >> "October layoff planning" and the URL is >> https://hrwiki.corp.internal/October-layoff-planning. Someone posts >> this URL to the layoff-planning pool on esme (the same group of people >> with access to the wiki page) and a bunch of people in the pool click >> on it. Suddenly, the upcoming layoff has been announced to every esme >> user in the corporation. Whoops! >> >> The point is, maybe that private information shouldn't be in the URL, >> but a lot of applications do this whether or not it is a good idea. I >> think we need to take that reality into account and change the way >> this works to avoid the possibility of these scenarios. >> >> Ethan >> >> On Tuesday, August 31, 2010, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Ethan, this defeats the purpose of having an URL shortener and it only >>> gives you a false sense of security. Read my previous mail. >>> >>> Links have no notion of a pool. A link could come from messages in >>> different pools or it might not be clicked "inside a message" at all. >>> >>> Let me know what you think. >>> >>> Vassil >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> [Changed subject to start a new thread. Was: "New issues - a couple of >>>> blockers for 1.1 release"] >>>> >>>> That's correct. The "Popular messages" functionality just keeps a >>>> counter of how many times a message has been resent. If you look at >>>> the UserActor.scala, lines 197 & 198, you'll see that the statistic >>>> "ResendStat" is incremented when a message is resent, but only if the >>>> message is not in a pool. Then when we want to find out what the most >>>> popular messages are, we ask the PopStatsActor - for example in the >>>> "popular" method of UserSnip.scala - line 213. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, the "LinkClicked is incremented in UrlStore.scala - >>>> line 40. Here there is never a check to see if the link came from a >>>> message in a pool. (This counter is used in the "links" method in >>>> UserSnip.scala, after the "popular" method.) >>>> >>>> I think we need to check if a link came from a pool before >>>> incrementing the counter, but in order to do this we need to record >>>> what pool a link belonged to, so I think we need to make pool part of >>>> the key of the UrlStore object and then populate this field when a new >>>> link is created. >>>> >>>> Ethan >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Imtiaz Ahmed H E <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> In the home when I type in a message sharing it with one pool and click >>>>> resend it does not show up in Popular Messages. But if the message is >>>>> public >>>>> it shows up on resend in Popular Pessages. >>>>> >>>>> Can you explain. Haven't gotten to Popular Links yet. >>>>> >>>>> Imtiaz >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ethan Jewett" <[email protected]> >>>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 11:37 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: New issues - a couple of blockers for 1.1 release >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> The issue doesn't happen with Popular Messages, only with Popular >>>>> Links. >>>>> >>>>> I need to look into the implementation, but I have a feeling the >>>>> Popular Links issue is going to be a headache. I believe that for a >>>>> given link there is no way to tell what message it shows up in, which >>>>> would make it impossible to tell if it is a link from a pooled message >>>>> or not. We may have to modify the data model for storing links to flag >>>>> the ones that started out in a pooled message... >>>>> >>>>> Regarding Pubsubhubbub, as Dick said, there's no hurry. I don't think >>>>> I'll be working on it over the next couple of weeks. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for all your efforts! >>>>> >>>>> Ethan >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Imtiaz Ahmed H E <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Re https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-267 >>>>>> >>>>>> I haven't tried this but plan to fix it right away. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tell me, is it only the links showing up in 'Popular Links' or is that >>>>>> a >>>>>> problem with the message itself also showing up in 'PopularMessages' >>>>>> >>>>>> Looks like I'll never get going with pubsubhubub ! First there was >>>>>> Dick's >>>>>> Release Planning mail with the pending 1.1 issues and now here are >>>>>> some >>>>>> more. Plan to get going after all 1.1 ending issues are resolved. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, Ethan it was your issue originally and if you feel you want >>>>>> to >>>>>> take >>>>>> it back again to push it to closure faster or something please do, >>>>>> otherwise >>>>>> I'll re-start on it once 1.1 is done... >>>>>> >>>>>> Imtiaz >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Hirsch" >>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>> To: < >> >
