esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Hirsch <>
Subject Re: ESME-267 - Pooled links in popular links list
Date Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:12:11 GMT
I agree with the solution of just removing those links that originate in pools.


On 8/31/10, Vassil Dichev <> 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 <> 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 <> 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 <> 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 <>
>>>> 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" <>
>>>>> To: <>
>>>>> 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 <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Re
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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"
>>>>>> <>
>>>>>> To: <

View raw message