Forget the 'free' lunch and do instant messaging properly

Instant messaging is one of those all too common conundrums in communications. It's a highly useful tool in the right hands and a potentially destructive weapon in the wrong ones. The devastating flaws recently discovered in AOL Instant Messenger is testament to this.

Because of this conflict, and the all too clear and present danger of the wrong hands prevailing, many network managers lay down rules within their desktop management systems to prevent users installing instant messaging clients from their desktops, period.

Which is a shame, because in the right hands instant messaging is a cost-effective medium. When used for inter-office communications between myriad, disparate sites instant messaging represents incredible value over and above traditional solutions. The necessary infrastructure, whether it's leased line, DSL or even dial-up internet connectivity is already accounted for, and there are no additional costs other than support and training issues.

Instant clients are all free (more of that in a moment) and there are no long distance or international telephone calls to worry about. It boosts productivity, with automatic logging of the conversation right there in the software; offers clarity of communication between multiple participants; and allows users to send files, add voice chat functionality and even web casting with the addition of webcam installations that are relatively cheap to roll out.

But to adapt Marshall McLuhan who famously wrote that "The medium is the message", in the case of instant messaging the message is most definitely in the medium. Choose the wrong instant client and you'll find yourself locked out of conversations you want to have, and expose your network to security breeches and impaired performance.

Although the temptation is to follow the herd and save some money by using one of the big three big and free clients (AIM, ICQ or the XP-based Windows Messenger), the savvy network manager knows there can often be a huge mismatch between initial savings and long-term cost.

Instant clients can use port 80 to bypass firewall rules, expose client IP addresses, introduce another avenue of access for viruses and trojans, and soak up bandwidth when webcams, voice chat or large file transfers are brought into the picture.

There is no way of remotely controlling the identity of users, nor the number of them for that matter. No way of restricting to whom messages can be sent, with contact databases being centrally stored at the messaging servers rather than in-house and company-specific. No way to turn off specific features on a per seat basis.

The answer would seem to lie with choice of client, and allocating a budget to cover the cost of incorporating a private instant messaging system using readily available components. Yes, you have to buy the software. Yes, you have to factor in the integration and configuration costs. Yes, it takes longer to roll out than a freebie proprietary solution. But, to adapt another well-known phrase, there is no such thing as a free lunch when network and corporate integrity are on the menu.