Why is direct IP calling impossible for a messenger-client programs?

Among the so-called messenger-like client programs,
I wish that Linux-Gaim does not require directory registration
or something.

For example, Netmeeting allows a direct IP-address call.
You can exclude MS directory service.
I do not understand why messeger client programs do not
allow direct IP-address calling.

Is it only because the client may hop around the globe?

The reason I am looking for such Netmeeting style messenger
client is because of those nasty SPAMMERs.

Thanks.

G. Hugh Song

G. Hugh Song wrote:
> Among the so-called messenger-like client programs,
> I wish that Linux-Gaim does not require directory registration
> or something.
>
> For example, Netmeeting allows a direct IP-address call.
> You can exclude MS directory service.
> I do not understand why messeger client programs do not
> allow direct IP-address calling.
>
> Is it only because the client may hop around the globe?
>
> The reason I am looking for such Netmeeting style messenger
> client is because of those nasty SPAMMERs.

1. Most people, especially most people who use IM products,
live behind a natting firewall. You CAN'T address them
directly.
2. Direct P2P leaves your machine open for hacking just by
offering a service to the world. By keeping your machine
just an IM client, you're at least a little safer.
(Yes, there are hacks for sending malformed messages to
various clients, too, but not so many as P2P programs.)
3. Your standard is NetMeeting? Ha! See #2 above.
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa HaHaHaHa
(Sorry.)

>> For example, Netmeeting allows a direct IP-address call.
>> You can exclude MS directory service.
>> I do not understand why messeger client programs do not
>> allow direct IP-address calling.
>>
>> Is it only because the client may hop around the globe?
>>
>> The reason I am looking for such Netmeeting style messenger
>> client is because of those nasty SPAMMERs.
>
> 1. Most people, especially most people who use IM products,
> live behind a natting firewall. You CAN'T address them
> directly.

I thought I'd point out that my colleagues and I have found a functional
workaround for this that allows direct host-to-host connections even from
behind two NAT'ed hosts. The implications are very interesting No ports
have to be explicitly opened or forwarded on the firewall. If anyone is
interested in developments in this field please contact me at
(E-Mail Removed)

- Jem Berkes
Electrical Engineering Dept.
University of Manitoba