From: Jason Yates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
But don't think banning aim is easy as a firewall rule. Let me give >you a
personal example. A previous employer of mine, decided >blocking instant
messaging was a good idea. They simply blocked, on >the firewall, the
default port AIM uses, problem fixed
> Is it possible to use the Jabber IM if you only have access to the
internet
> via port 80 (www) through a MS Proxy server? Does anybody know of any IM
> clients that will work in this configuration?
As far as I remember, the port on which Jabber runs can be configured using
jabber.xml file.
Als
: Thursday, November 28, 2002 2:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Zinger
Subject: Re: Survey: Chat and IM
> Something to think about is setting up an internal IM server as a
compromise.
In fact, we had a similar issue at my place of worl. We finally decided to
go with Jabber (http://www.jabber.org/)
It i
> Something to think about is setting up an internal IM server as a
compromise.
In fact, we had a similar issue at my place of worl. We finally decided to
go with Jabber (http://www.jabber.org/)
It is a pretty full featured IM product and has support for SSL and
Encrypted one on one chats.
With
/John
-Original Message-
From: ONEILL David J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Mon 11/25/2002 4:56 PM
To: Receipt notification requested; Receipt notification requested
Cc:
Subject: Re: Survey: Chat a
3 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Survey: Chat and IM
Hi,
We currently are allowing web based chat and instant messaging. I know that
there are lots of security issues involved with its usage. The IT folks are
telling me that it is a common practice in the industry. I have a hard time
belie
J'; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Survey: Chat and IM
Every administrator I have ever met restricts that type of traffic because
it is a security risk and for bandwidth reasons. For instance, Yahoo
messenger maintains stale connections when the other person goes offline,
AIM ha
: 'tony toni' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
We use the AIM protocol (although with some restrictions - no inbound file
transfers -
and Trillian, which supports encryption), and it's a valuable part of our
business tools.
If we were to remove this feature, it would be a noticeable detriment to
employee's
productivity. The most important co
Toni, David...
Have you (and your respective staffs) considered a compromise?
I don't know precisely how widespread business IM use is, but it is an expanding
market. If your end-users (and by extension, IT staff) see it as a business
requirement, it seems to me that the "battle" has already been
On 25/11/02 13:53 -0800, Fred Hoot wrote:
> We have outlawed all instant messaging products and purchased a private
> messaging software (Active Messenger). It is internal and can be accessed
> via our VPN connections between offices.
Any reason not to use Jabber?
Devdas Bhagat
through.
Todd Lehmann
Systems Analyst I
VPN Subject Matter Expert
-Original Message-
From: ONEILL David J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 1:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Survey: Chat and IM
Good Luck ... We got shot down in Flames
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 4:03 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Survey: Chat and IM
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> We currently are allowing web based chat and instant
> messaging. I know that
> there are lots of security issues involved with its usage.
> The
From: "tony toni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We currently are allowing web based chat and instant messaging. I know
that there are lots of security issues involved with its usage. The IT
folks are telling me that it is a common practice in the industry. I have
a hard time believing this and this is o
Hi,
We currently are allowing web based chat and instant messaging. I know that
there are lots of security issues involved with its usage. The IT folks are
telling me that it is a common practice in the industry. I have a hard time
believing this and this is one battle I would like to take
My suggestion is to take the low road and perform some security awareness
by educating the user base that web chat and IM are not encrypted and
may be subject to monitoring by the company and anyone outside of the company
network willing to run a packet sniffer.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:56:25PM
Here is a good article from Security Strategies:
http://esj.com/columns/print.asp?EditorialsID=116
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:56:25PM -0800, ONEILL David J wrote:
> Good Luck ... We got shot down in Flames, no matter how we packaged it.
>
> David J. O'Neill
> NEDSS - IS7
> Parkway Bldg., 2nd Flo
I think if you ban file transfer connections and direct connections. You
should be alright from a security standpoint. Not really sure how you could
do it though =/. I know most of the java web clients support these features,
so I really don't see any security differences between the regular
> We currently are allowing web based chat and instant messaging. I know
> that there are lots of security issues involved with its usage. The IT
> folks are telling me that it is a common practice in the industry. I
> have a hard time believing this and this is one battle I would like to
> ta
02 1:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Survey: Chat and IM
Hi,
We currently are allowing web based chat and instant messaging. I know that
there are lots of security issues involved with its usage. The IT folks are
telling me that it is a common practice in the industry. I have a hard
Good Luck ... We got shot down in Flames, no matter how we packaged it.
David J. O'Neill
NEDSS - IS7
Parkway Bldg., 2nd Floor
Phone: (503) 378-2101 ext. 364
FAX: (503) 378-2102
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/25/02 01:48PM >>>
Hi,
We currently are allowing web based chat and instant messaging. I
21 matches
Mail list logo
