I disagree with you iain, I don’'t think IM transports
is a bad solution.
I would agree they were a good solution if they worked reliably.
- A company which uses public IM only need to have
the 5222 port open in the firewall and not one for
each IM they want to use.
Well, technically you still need to open the ports to the other IM systems but can filter content so it only goes to the server which is a lot more secure. I agree it’'s a big improvement though. The really BIG win for transports is the server serves as a choke point for all messages allowing you to enforce uniform auditing and other usage policies without having to resort to packet sniffing.
- It want never be 5*X because not all users want to
use all of the IM available, I have used lots of
different IM systems over many years and currently
I’'m using only MSN,ICQ and XMPP. Maybe in the future
I only would be available by XMPP and I think I’'m not
True. But scalability planning should be prepared for the eventuality to connecting to all supported transports. It’‘s been my experience that if it’'s easy and seemless for someone to be logged into multiple networks, they will.
- Blacklist/blocking of IP addresses. I think
managers of XMPP servers which support transports
should make an agrement with the the other IM
companies thus allowing these servers to connect
If that were possible it would certainly be the ideal solution. The most important network to transport to, AIM, currently does not offer that option.