Can anyone tell me please, what is reason behind Notification Sends Value 0?
There are many reasons why a particular push could have 0 Notification Sends.
I would make a Forum Post or submit a support ticket on the Urban Airship Support Site with some more information, such as your app key. The support agents there can then help troubleshoot your specific issue.
Related
Short question this time - is it possible for me to check whether the user has disabled notifications in the notifications/actions centre?
Currently, notifications are sent via MPNS, and work as intended, and the only "issue" is being aware if the user will receive toast notifications or not :)
The only two sources I managed to find so far even remotely connected are the one discussing possible restrictions due to the battery saver, and discussing sending toast notifications from application (which is not what is needed here).
Since MS states in their documentation that we're not supposed to "use your app to ask users to enable toast notifications if they have chosen to disable them. Your app is expected to work without toast notifications.", I feel that perhaps this information is not as freely accessible as it might seem at first glance, but hopefully some of you can either confirm my suspicions or help me overcome it :)
There are couple of ways for a website to know where a user comes from, like search engine, social platforms, email newsletter, etc. Great way to monitor traffic and assess campaigns.
If a website sends regular newsletter, it also gives the option of managing subscriptions. One clicks on the link and can choose to set the frequency or entirely stop letters altogether among other settings.
But what if, for eg, A sends the newsletter to her friend B, B somehow decides to stop receiving any mails from A decides to unsubscribe! But effectively A gets screwed.
So is there anyway for a website to know that the request to get unsubscribed actually came from another email account and not its original subscriber?
I am not aware if Mailchimp or other services know how to handle this, so pls guide me so.
Of course there are couple of other ways to authenticate like to login and then change but I have seen many newsletter straight away unsubscribing without even confirming the request. I am not aware if they do some sort of check before doing that. But this can also be used to tell something to the website about its letter, like A forwarded to B but B did not like.
Thanks.
The only way you can expect to be able to identify a user in this way is to see of they have a cookie previously issued with a session, that you can associate with the user's account, that was authenticated by a login on your site.
Alternately, you can ask users to email the word "unsubscribe" in a message from the original account instead of depending on a link.
Suppose I'm the developer of a chrome extension (which indeed I am) that is up on the web store and that I want to answer the review of one the users.
Now, if I add/edit my review my previous post gets overridden (even if I AM the developer), making my efforts in helping users useless.
Is there something I'm missing, or is it how it currently works without any way to prevent this from happening?
All reviews on the Chrome Web Store are from Google+ users now. Your best option is to click through to their profile and either send them an email, send them a message, or share a post with them. The first two are more direct and likely to get noticed but there isn't much else you can do.
Some friends with the help of various sites check and know when i'm invisible on yahoo messenger and keep bragging about this.
Being curious about this I've tested lots of sites that check if a user is invisible on yahoo messenger and all of them sent me a C1 packet type.
From what i've tested I'm(my ymsgr client) not sending anything back. So i only receive 1 packet from the bot that performs the check and that's it, they know if i'm invisible or not.
Next i thought that if i'm not sending anything back then maybe the yahoo server sends something back to i tested on a friend of mine and i sent him a c1 packet but i did not received anything back from nobody (neither the server neither my friend).
So how do they do that? I'm just looking for some hints, not expecting for code or someone else to solve it for me. I just like the thrill in learning and discovering by myself just that now i'm stuck with no idea :)
Thanks.
This is a new answer because it's too long to be a comment.
I looked around a bit and it would seem that the older versions of yahoo had a deal where if you were invisible and someone tried to start a voice chat with you, it would give you away. The ping packet could be trying that.
One thing I noticed on gtalk was that often a user appears online even after they have disconnected until someone sends them a ping packet. Also, if you are invisible and then you come back, the length of time that you've been online gives away the fact that you were invisible.
Could it be, then, that when you are pinged, your status, online time, etc all update on the yahoo server if you are online and what these services are doing then are checking to see if yahoo takes any action? I would presume that all yahoo is doing is not broadcasting your info if you're online, but you can still see that the server does something.
Instead of monitoring for an incoming/outgoing packet, why don't you check your registry on the yahoo server? I believe there's a url for that.
hope this helps,
Mechko
When you are invisible, basically you are online, but simply their server do not broadcast your real status (online), but a fake one (offline).
Yahoo is not fully able to "hide" your real status, but it has some "holes" in how aggressively tries: see here for details.
Actually there are lot of websites and possible spyware that make it even easier for an end-user to check.
Is it possible that sending such a packet to someone who's not online results in an error? In that case, sending the packet and not getting an error means that that person is online.
From what you are saying, I'd suggest that the bot actually checks somewhere else (if it is true that there are no packets sent at all)
Could it be that there is an online registry of users who are online and the packet that you are sent is just an artifact?
I hadn't used Yahoo Messenger is a long time, but something you said made me wonder. You said these testing websites sent you a C1 packet. I'm wondering if it is as simple a firewall rules to block all but the Yahoo servers. I don't know if chat/voice/file transfers are done P2P, if so you would have to update your firewall rules.
Back in the day I used to use my firewall to block the ad banners on the IM clients because they were served on a different URL and failure to connect to the ad server didn't disconnect my IM channel.
Maybe you can have the firewall ask for each connection and see how few connections you need in order to have the messenger work. Then have the firewall drop unsolicited packets.
If that doesn't work, you can use the firewall to block the checking sites.
Good luck.
Here are some of the methods you can use to detect if a user is invisible or really offline (some of these depend on earlier versions of the messenger application):
Start a voice chat with the user you want to check. If you get an error, the user if really offline.
Send a message to the user, then change the IMEnviorment. If you see a message saying “waiting for your friend to load the theme”, then the user if really offline.
Download (and pay for, unfortunately) Buddy Check.
Navigate to this URL in your browser: http://opi.yahoo.com/online?m=g&t=2&u=userid (change userid to the user you are testing). (This did not work for me).
There are websites that let you can check the status online, but there is no guarantee they'll work (they're only doing what I am showing you above). Basically, you can use these VIA screen scraping. Here are some of the sites:
http://www.ydetector.com/
http://www.imvisible.info/
http://www.invisible.ir/
http://www.invisible-scanner.com/ (This one has worked best for me)
Not sure if the title is quite right for the question but I can't think of any other way to put it..
Suppose you wanted to create multiple different web apps, but you wanted a user who was logged into one app to be able to go straight to your other app without re-logging in (assuming they have perms to look at the other app as well). If I'm not mistaken, if you're logged into gmail you can go straight to your iGoogle, googleReader, etc without re-logging in (if you set it up right).
How would you approach this? What would you use? Assume the apps already exist and you don't want to change the initial login page for the users.
What you're looking for is called Single Sign On. If you follow the link you'll find several implementations.
Open ID as others have mentioned is not such a scheme as it requires a seperate login for each site. Open ID is merely a shared authentication system.
You would issue a cookie against foo.com, which would then be visible on app1.foo.com, app2.foo.com.
Each application can then use the cookie to access a centralised authentication system.
Try CAS it should provide the features you are looking for.
What you want is a single sign-on (SSO).
There are two approaches to solving this problem:
Roll your own implementation. In its most trivial form it can be implemented by the first site setting a cookie that holds the ticket for the logged on user and the second site verifying that ticket and accepting the logged on user. There are quite a lot of potential pitfalls here:
you have to protect yourself against information disclosure - make sure that the ticket does not contain the actual user credentials
you have to protect yourself against spoofing - a man in the middle stealing a valid ticket and impersonating one of your users
and others
Adopt a third party SSO mechanism. Google, Microsoft, Facebook and other big companies allow integrating with their identity providers, so that your users could log on to their website and they handle verification, ticket issuing and so on. There's also OpenID, which is an open protocol you can use to enable SSO on your site through virtually any identity provider that supports OpenID. The potential drawback here is that somebody else controls your access to your user identity and can limit the features you can offer and data you can mine for your users.
As mentioned you can use something like OpenId or similar to make the process simple. Otherwise if you roll your own you could use a cookie to store the login, then basically ALL applications must have an entry point that mimics the base url.
Google for example uses mail.google.com to as a pipline into Gmail which allows it to read a cookie stored with the google.com domain.