Basic Internal Instant Messaging Solution? 155
sk8dork asks: "I am pretty much _the_ internal IT person at the company I work for and I am recognizing the need for internal Instant Messaging more and more each day. While email is quick and easy to send, it's not always the quickest way to get your message to someone when they're not monitoring their inbox every second of the day. Having come from a position in Dell tech support I've experienced the MS communications solution but was put off by the instability of it and, now that I've looked into purchasing it, the steep price as well. For more stability we often used an internal IRC channel, but most people would either not login or they'd just be put off by its complexity. In this new company, where close to no one is 'computer savvy', I am in need of an Instant Messaging solution that is easy to use, secure, limited to our network, and inexpensive. I'd like to stay away from the mainstream IM clients such as Yahoo!, AIM, ICQ and others. We're running Windows Server 2003 for Small Business (sorry) and will be soon upgrading out of the SBE to regular Windows Server 2003. Any helpful information will be greatly appreciated."
Open Source (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
I wish I could get more of my friends over to Jabber. I can have the power of running my own server with the flexibility of being to talk to anyone on the Interne
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
Re:Open Source (Score:1)
Jabber Inside + Outside Firewall (Score:2)
But before that, we used a Jabber-based system that included one server inside the firewall and one server outside the firewall (probably in a DMZ), which meant that I could use the corporate IM system from work and also from home, on or off a VPN connection, which was amazingly convenient. It also meant that I could start up the IM client when I booted my laptop, and if I was at home, that meant that it c
Re:Open Source (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Open Source (Score:3, Interesting)
SSL is enough (Score:2)
Re:SSL is enough (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Open Source (Score:5, Informative)
Jive rocks! (Score:2)
With Asterisk integration (Score:2, Informative)
Jabber indeed. (Score:2)
When I was interested in such things (2002), I bought and read O'Reilly's Programming Jabber. No doubt it's dated by now, but it's my recollection that it was thorough and helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
Another huge advantage of Jabber (on top of having several clients & servers, most IM functions of the concurrence and the ability to bridge to the global Jabber networks including GMail as well as to Hotmail and Yahoo servers) is that it's the only IM with ICQ that can still send messages offline...
Which allows you to get pretty much rid of e-mail for anything but the cases when e-mails are required.
Standards - Jabber or SIP/SIMPLE (Score:2)
mod parent up! Re:Standards - Jabber or SIP/SIMPLE (Score:2)
100% agree that SIP is the best way to go forwards, as it means you've then got a user authentication database to hang a VOIP telephony system off when you want to go that way.
also, whilst the other players might not like to inter-work too much with instant messaging, there's a slightly bigger chance of them doing SIP gateways for their voice chat.
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
For your solution, look no further than Jabber.
Well, you could use (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Well, you could use (Score:2)
Heh. At a company I worked at a couple of years ago we had net send disabled becaues we kept getting ads through it.
Well, since I'm wasting space with this post, I'll ask a question: Did Microsoft finally fix that in XP, or did they just disable the service by default?
Re:Well, you could use (Score:2)
It's called "use a firewall".
+5 funny? (Score:2)
DBabble (Score:2)
Jiveserver (Score:5, Informative)
It uses the jabber protocol and as such, can be used with a variety of IM clients.
Re:Jiveserver (Score:3, Informative)
it's java so it runs anywhere. i'm currently running it as a service on a windows 2000 workstation.
the web admin interface is nice.
i'm running the old version (jive messenger) as the newer plugins and expanded database support haven't been reason enough to upgrade and i don't consider security a big enough issue on an intranet. don't let my downplaying of the new plugins discourage you, but instead it should speak highly of how well the basic server ful
Re:Jiveserver (Score:2)
For those who don't know, jingle is an extention to the XMPP protocol which delivers voice chat, which is nice.
Re:Jiveserver (Score:3, Informative)
I set up a Wildfire server at Loyola University Chicago, and it was exceptionally easy and secure. Since we use LDAP authentication in our computer science, we were able to instantly have user accounts pre-loaded. For Windows users, Wildfire should integrate with active directory very easily.
I would also recommend using Spark or Gaim as a jabber client.
Of course, the Spark admin plug-in for Wildfire is a good addition, as it provides a localized download are
Re:Jiveserver (Score:2)
I can confirm that integrating with Active Directory is easy. We use Wildfire at my office and it took me about five minutes to get it talking to the LDAP service on our domain controller. It then take a few more minutes to get it providing VCards based on the directory information. It worked like a dream.
We have users here using all sorts of different clients. I use Psi, while our single Mac user uses iChat. Some guys use Miranda IM so that they can use MSN Messenger as well. One lovely thing about Jabber
Re:Jiveserver (Score:2)
- end-to-end security
- the option to log centrally for multi-user chats
- multiple client platforms
- interoperation with external partners and collaborators who may use other services
- alert delivery to external endpoints
- sms integration
- integration with internal groupware user administration
I found all of this easy to do using GAIM as a default client with a Jabber server, AIM/Yahoo/MSN/IRC plugins on the server
Re:Jiveserver (Score:2)
It may also be worth looking at ejabberd (which is what jabber.org now uses).
Re:Jiveserver (Score:2)
Wrote some documentation:
Wildfire server with SSO and MS SQL [technology.net.au]
I recently had to do an implementation of Wildfire with Single Sign On, with a backend in Active Directory and Microsoft SQL server. This is with the Pandion client and pulling all the data from Active Directory and populating the client. Even if you think the documentation sucks, at least look at the links on the end if you want to know more information.
Jabber (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.jabber.org/software/servers.shtml [jabber.org]
Yes, you can get a server for a Windows platform, yes you can pay for it too if it helps.
The old-fashioned solution (Score:3, Funny)
See I get up, or just raise my voice (depending on the situation) and talk to the person I want to have an instant communication with. It is pretty easy to have one-to-many instant messages, too.
It is nice in that this instant messaging technique continues to work even if the server or network goes down.
One the down side, it only works for short distances, but you can get the phone plug-in for longer distances. But with the phone plug-in it is tough to see if the person you want to send an instant message to is "on-line".
The other downside is you can't change your avatar (aka buddy icon), and I don't like the way mine looks. Some people try to hack this sometimes (Halloween for example) but it rarely looks right. You can get your avatar professional altered but that cost a lot of money.
Re:The old-fashioned solution (Score:2, Insightful)
How big can the place be if the guy is the only internal IT person?
A shovel and a backhoe are both "technology" solutions. If you're digging a swimming pool, the backhoe is the better technology match. If you're planting two shrubs in your back yard, the shovel is the better technology match.
Why can't a cell phone work here? Does the "instant" message need to be in text and not voice? I'll grant that it might be too difficult to t
Re:The old-fashioned solution (Score:2)
Re:The old-fashioned solution (Score:1)
We might have had more IT people if the majority of our employees weren't so
logging (Score:2)
"hey bob, what's up? Oh, right, yeah, just go to http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=188393&op= Reply&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=nested&pid=15 529472 [slashdot.org] and you'll find what you need. See ya tomorrow. Yeah, 188393. Right. commentsort equals zero, you got it. Later."
Re:The old-fashioned solution (Score:2)
Maybe the reception in the building is horrible.
Maybe the company doesn't want to purchase service for those that don't have phones already.
Maybe it would be more efficient to be able to real-time IM someone while one or both of you are on the phone at the same time.
Maybe they want to be able to give group annoucements without calling everyone's individual phone, waiting for them to check email, posting flyers, or disrupting workflow to have a meeting.
Maybe it's useful (for
Re:The old-fashioned solution (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The old-fashioned solution (Score:2)
Correction, sir. That's blown out. [google.com]
Re:The old-fashioned solution (Score:1)
Yeah, I kind of agree, for a company that's small and decidedly not tech-savvy. My company made an attempt with Skype, with these results:
So, if you're willing to put some effort into training everyone on Jabber, go for it. Otherwise, just make sure e
We use that all the time at my office (Score:4, Funny)
Warn me next time! (Score:2, Funny)
Warn me next time, I can't see sick shit like that while at work! >: (
10101011101011010100010101010011010101010110101010 01010010101010101010101010010101110101010101101010 10101100101101010100101101011101010101101101001010 10101010010001010100101001010010100101011010101010 10100101111101010101110101010010101000001010101000 00101010010101000101010000000000000001101111111111 11010101010000000110010101010100101010010101001010 10010101010010101010010101010010101011010101010101 010010101".
Broadcast Medium (Score:2)
The other flaw is that nearby users are able to recieve traffic that's not intended for them. This can be mitigated by whispering, but this tends to result in increased data corruption and the need for retransmissions.
Re:We use that all the time at my office (Score:2)
o_O?
Thanks! (Score:2)
Rendezvous? (Score:2)
Re:Rendezvous? (Score:2)
Zeroconf has nothing to do with IM or file-sharing. It's a network service configuration protocol. Think LDAP-helper here.
Jabber (Score:2)
Even if one assumes that "we have a windows server, so everything must be on Microsoft's platform no matter what", I'm pretty sure there are a few legally free servers available that run on windows, in addition to the reference implementation and a few others that could easily be run on a scavenged box running Linux.
XMPP is well documented, and it's easy to set up an "internal only" server for in-house use. You can also add more servers and link them together later if you end up needing to, for example, s
Wildefire is the best (Score:2, Informative)
The best jabber implementation that I have used is Wildfire by Jivesoftware. It was really really easy to install and setup (even with LDAP support), and our company has been using it for months and months. It's really great to have an internal IM server.
ICQ Groupware (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ICQ Groupware (Score:2, Informative)
More of an adversarial company than a software co. (Score:2)
Sometimes it seems to me that Microsoft is more of an adversarial behavior company than a software company.
Today someone called from Microsoft, inviting people at my company to come to some kind of educational event. She had inaccurate information about my company, even though we have been selling Microsoft products for more than 20 years.
The previous caller from Microso
Wildfire and Psi (Score:2)
Re:Wildfire and Psi (Score:2)
Uh what? An IM client you say?
Re:Wildfire and Psi (Score:2)
LanChat (Score:2)
There is Waste too... (Score:1)
Re:There is Waste too... (Score:2)
Re:There is Waste too... (Score:2)
Re:There is Waste too... (Score:2)
'...or they'd just be put off by its complexity.' (Score:2, Funny)
Have you tried Tonic? (Score:1, Interesting)
We use it at work for instant messenging. It has a number of features similar to MSN/ICQ, etc but its LAN only and best of all its free!
We have about 60 users online and the performance is very good.
Their latest beta builds are improving nicely with features such as multichat so hopefully a new version will be released soon.
Uh. It's built in. (Score:1, Informative)
[windows+r] net send {username} {message text} [enter]
P.S. The UNIX guys have a similar utility called "write" that's been on every UNIX-ish system I've ever used.
Re:Uh. It's built in. (Score:2)
"You need IM? Oh sir just open a command line and..." *plonk* fired.
Campfire (Score:1)
e-pop seems to fit (Score:1)
More info at http://www.wiredred.com/secure-messaging/ [wiredred.com]
Re:e-pop seems to fit (Score:2)
This was used to be a fairly good product (e/pop Professional). It offered encrypted communications, tied into various directory schemes *and* offered you a built-in remote control facility so that you could see the user's screen. That was invaluable for support staff as they could see what the user was trying to do and help them out directly. It was also fairly robust (although there were bugs when e/pop had to deal with multi-homed machines such as remote
look at ejabberd (Score:2)
I recently set up ejabberd [jabber.ru] and JWChat [sourceforge.net] (AJAX-based web client) at my office. ejabberd authenticates against our Windows domain using LDAP, and using JWChat means there's no client to install. I tried a couple of other jabber servers, but ejabberd was the easiest to integrate with JWChat.
I haven't had much buy-in yet, but that's another story.
Jabberd (Score:2)
I'm going to go out on a limb here (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I'm going to go out on a limb here (Score:1)
Re:I'm going to go out on a limb here (Score:1)
Notes Buddy [ibm.com] and
IBM Community Tools (ICT) [ibm.com]
Quite a reliable system, I've found!
Score one for the Empire (Score:1)
Where I work, I recently switched from a Unix group to a Windows one--trying new things, learn new tricks, blah blah blah--and was given a project to establish federation using LCS. In researching LCS, I was actually pleasantly surprised at the SIP RFC compli
Don't use AIM (Score:2)
What are the dangers of IM? (Score:3, Interesting)
I warned her about fake links in emails and fake email senders, and showed her how easy it is to send a mail
From: Saddam Hussein <president@whitehouse.gov>
(After which we played a while sending fake emails to her friends, seeming to come from other friends, teachers, etc. so for email, I think she and her friends got the message... Next exercise will be to spoof the school web site)
But having
Re:What are the dangers of IM? (Score:2)
I'm not sure how one would go about teaching that. Except by teaching your children not to believe everything
Re:What are the dangers of IM? (Score:2)
Re:Don't use AIM (Score:2)
Jabber or IRC would both work. I would reccommend against AIM, MSN, & Yahoo simply for the fact of viruses.
I concur, but there is a social aspect to consider in many environments. Users may want/need to be able to communicate with people outside the company via one of the above networks. They may want to do so. You can set up Jabber or IRC to be a bridge to them, but a little education is needed in any case. Here we just use multi-protocol clients and IRC. Users are educated (well they're mostly secu
e/pop (Score:2)
We use e/pop http://www.wiredred.com/ [wiredred.com] at the law firm where I work (I'm not in IT, my only exposure is to the client). It's about as basic as you can get, and even senior partners can operate it (we have a few that weren't even on email until 2-3 years ago). No other connection with the software, just use it and know that it's 'good enough' for us.
Jabber... (Score:2)
NetMeeting (Score:2)
CTCP SMSG (Score:2)
Oh, the havoc we used to wreak with CTCP SMSG...
Re:CTCP SMSG (Score:2)
Omnipod might be an option (Score:4, Informative)
Here at Pythian Remote DBA [pythian.com] we've had a client these past two years called Omnipod [omnipod.com]. They run a good shop and the tech guys there are absolute tops.
Their software is a turnkey hosted secure instant messaging platform. It integrates with the big three networks just fine. It has amazing archiving and audit abilities, thus its popularity in the financial sector (those dudes have to keep all written communication for a few years or they're not allowed to use it at all).
Furthermore, it has an extremely cool feature that's not in any of Y! AIM or MSN: You can create Venn-diagram like overlap groups so that line workers can't just IM the CEO, and so that you can control the communication of presence information inside and outside the group.
It's all very cool and I can recommend it without hesitating. Although it's not FOS, the fact that you don't have to administer it and that you can be up and running tomorrow totally kicks ass.
HTH
Paul
Novell GroupWise (Score:2)
Runs on Windows, comes with an Instant Messaging component, and to appease your management that might be worried about IM traffic carrying company secrets out to your competitors, it doesn't hook up to YIM, AIM, or MSN. However, the GAIM client does talk to both Jabber and GWIM.
Best, is that should you later want to move to Linux, your GroupWise system will move seamlessly.
If your users won't use it, do you truly need it? (Score:4, Insightful)
You said when you had an internal IRC channel set up, your users would avoid logging into it and were turned off by its complexity.
Regardless of what Instant Messaging solution you eventually decide on, will the situation be any different? If your users don't see the value of IM, it will be hard to convince them to make use of it, no matter how secure, convenient, or simple it is.
Re:If your users won't use it, do you truly need i (Score:2)
You said when you had an internal IRC channel set up, your users would avoid logging into it and were turned off by its complexity. Regardless of what Instant Messaging solution you eventually decide on, will the situation be any different?
For many users, yes. A lot of casual computer users know and use AIM, or MSN. They have friends online and want to be able to chat with them during the day. They don't know how to do voice chats or group chats and don't want to. If you IM them a file, they ask for help
Ah, how it all repeats (Score:2, Informative)
Psi was great because it was easy to configure so that their applica
Shouting lessons (Score:2)
Jabber, in five minutes (Score:2)
Try out Akeni lan messenger. (Score:2)
IRC ... (Score:2)
Re:IRC is too complex (Score:1)
IRC++ (Score:2, Insightful)
Possibilities, off the top of my head...
1) Different channels for different departments
2) An "all" channel where you can broadcast messages to everyone
3) Short, simple, impromptu meetings that can easily be logged
4) A variety of clients with varying degrees of friendliness, from mIRC to GAIM; or develop your own to fit the needs of your company
Re:The classic paradox. (Score:1)
I've got your MS solution right here: Using Windows Chat in Windows XP [microsoft.com]. May work for Win2k3, YMMV.
You're welcome.
Not for us. (Score:2)
In short, "net send" is off limits in our office.
Re:Before IM came to the office... (Score:2)
That's very short-sighted of you.
IM works well for cutting down on the number of internal calls, which is very good when you have remote workers. Most people find it to be less intrusive then a telephone call (I can do multiple things while monitoring a chat conversation). It works well for th
Re:Psi supports encription (Score:2)
Re:Psi supports encription (Score:2)