Oh, I see. Yes, that would make sense. So we would just leave the original link in there, right?
Ethan On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> wrote: > 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: < >>> >> >
