mail and IM is private but pool is public or group own. If a team leader create a pool, does he want people who leave pool could read old message? I do not think so.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:58 PM, 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 > > > -- Global R&D Center,Shanghai China,Carestream Health, Inc. Tel:(86-21)3852 6101
