Talk:Comparison of instant messaging protocols

message: The column "Serverless (decentralized)" should be revised. Matrix e.g. is listed with "No". AFAIK Martix has servers but there is not a single server. It is a federated network of servers. So to a certain degree Matrix is decentralized but it is not really serverless. Also servers might be useful for offline messaging. I mean sending a message to someone who is offline by sending the message to the recipient's server and delivering it later to the client (Is there a better term for this?). Theoretically, there could be three columns. One for serverless, one for decentralized networks, and a third for offline messaging.
It is now listed with "Yes", which is not fine either. Should be something in-between, for the reasons outlined above.
: Well, probably the simplest way to remove contradiction is to remove the "(decentralized)" from the table heading and move back Matrix to NO. Serverless is a specific way in which a system can be decentralized. I'm applying it. LoGaIta99 (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serverless (decentralized) 

message: Would it make sense to add a column listing the typical ports used, or at least indicate what to expect from each protocol to help understand how each one fits into firewalling and routing schemes? Acodring (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ports Used? 

message: Isn't the spamfilter of ICQ client-based? --Enormator (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OSCAR spamfilter? 

message: Should we add T.120 family of ITU standards? There is a protocol specially designed for "text chat" (T.140/T.134). It seems that Microsoft NetMeeting supports these protocols.
Also: the protocol is ad hoc (no centralised server). Should we add this feature as an extra section?
There is a protocol defined by WAP Forum & Open Mobile Alliance. I think we should add it also. Name it IMPP (I have seen this term at www.protocols.com for IETF RFCs 2778&2779. But the RFCs pose a problem, and that protocol seems to be solution for it.)
--217.8.94.16 19:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More protocols 

message: Perhaps this list should be re-arranged "Standard", "Proprietary," and "Obsolete" to help users decide which protocol to choose based on whether or not it's still used, and whether or not there's an IETF standard or something in the standards track for it. --BalooUrsidae 08:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split list by type? 

message: I agree with the merge
--Davelane 21:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of ''Comparison'' and ''List'' completed 

message: stpeter, how does XEP-0033: Extended Stanza Addressing implement a bulletin to all friends ? do you first manually have to define a recipient list containing all friends, then you can send something to it? does any client support such a function? or would it be easier for a client to simply copy the message to each buddy itself? I wouldn't say in the current state of things Jabber provides a Yes there, much more a Soon/RSN/ASAP/One Jolly Day ...  --SymlynX 15:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulletin to All Friends 

message: Does this belong in this list? Or was it just a front-end for one of these clients? If so, I would like to see someone add that info as a footnote if nothing else. Thanks. JimScott 08:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Netscape Communicator was an internet suite (browser/email/news/HTML authoring/calendaring).  The discontinued Netscape Conference was more of a VoIP client.  Indeed, the closest thing to instant messaging was the bundled AOL Instant Messenger (already in this comparison. --Karnesky 13:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move —Mets501 (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netscape Communicator 

message: Is the MySpace protocol on here yet?  If so, should it be added? Omnipotence407 18:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MySpace?

message: So 69.111.164.176 has added Supports groups or channels for members / nonmembers / nobody - I understand groups and chat rooms and channels in IRC terminology, but how is members / nonmembers / nobody intended? Should we call the column simply chat rooms ?  --lynX
what about a one that says if you can log in at more then one location like with aol (oscar) you can but msn you cant) 82.24.175.199 11:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New columns 

message: Arguably the most important property of an IM protocol is the userbase. Why isn't it mentioned here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.117.221 (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users 

message: I'd say we could add something to the "Voip/Audio" Column, for example Icq 6 has now Voipcall functions and in America is IcqPhone available.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.210.157 (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICQ Phone... 

message: I have a copy of Tik version 0.11 downloaded Nov 5, 1998
It includes a copy of the TOC1.0 protocol description with a file date of Oct 30, 1998.  
I admit, this was the date of the release, not of the writing of the text.
The text bears a copyright date of 1998.
The early development progress is consistent with the initial release being within a few months before.
As such, I filled in 1998 without a month.
Maybe somebody else can be more specific.
--David Garfield (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC release date notes 

message: I would like to know which protocols require buddy authorization. For example, AIM does not, and anybody can add you as a buddy and see whether you are online, but last I checked MSN or ICQ for example require the buddy to "authorize" the buddy request. Are there any other protocols like AIM that do not require authorization?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.123.18.216 (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddy authorization required? 

message: *Bulletins to all contacts: I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. If it means "can someone send a message to every current connection to the server?", then the IRC protocol has a WALLOPS command which sends a message to everyone with user mode +w. If this means for a non-operator to send all current contacts (channels and "queried" nicks as defined by client?), that is possible with a nonstandard feature some clients support called /amsg, which should not be included in this comparison IMO.
*Batch file sharing: This is possible with Direct Client-to-Client (DCC), no?
*Media synchronization: What does this mean?
πr2 (t • c) 20:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC accuracy