docs/diploma: thesis/tex/3-MailTransferAgents.tex comparison

comparison thesis/tex/3-MailTransferAgents.tex @ 130:6ce355da579f

market share stuff and more

author	meillo@marmaro.de
date	Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:31:12 +0100
parents	6f622eb5c812
children	a83a29e10b10

comparison

equal deleted inserted replaced

-:5a122d28f1ca
+:6ce355da579f
 \section{Popular MTAs}
-%todo: include market share analyses here
+This section introduces a selection of popular \MTA{}s; they are the most likely substitutes for \masqmail. All are \emph{sendmail-compatible} ``smart'' \freesw\ \MTA{}s that focus on mail transfer, as is \masqmail.
-<< some info about market shares >>
+The programs chosen are: \sendmail, \name{exim}, \name{qmail}, and \name{postfix}. They are the most important representatives of the regarded group. Although \MTA\ statistics are rare, FIXME(have different results), and good data is hard to collect, these programs tend to stay near the top.
-One would not use a program for a job it is not suited for. Therefor only \mta{}s that are mostly similar to \masqmail\ are regarded here. These are \emph{sendmail-compatible} ``smart'' \freesw\ \MTA{}s that focus on mail transfer.
+Table \ref{tab:mta-market-share} shows the Top 10 \MTA{}s of three different statistics. The first published by \name{O'ReillyNet} in YYYY \citeweb{oreillynet:mta-stats} , the second by \name{Mailradar.com} from YYYY \citeweb{mailradar:mta-stats} , and the third by \textsc{Daniel~J.\ Bernstein} (the author of \name{qmail}) done in 2001 \citeweb{djb:mta-stats}.
-For the comparison, five programs are taken: \sendmail, \name{exim}, \name{qmail}, \name{postfix}, and \masqmail. The four alternatives to \masqmail\ are the most important representatives of the regarded group. % FIXME: add ref that affirm that
+\begin{table}
-Other members are: \name{smail}, \name{zmailer}, \name{mmdf}, and \name{courier-mta}; they all are less important and rarely used.
+	\begin{center}
+		\input{input/mta-market-share.tex}
-Following is a small introduction to each of the five programs chosen for comparison, except \masqmail\ which already was introduced in chapter \ref{chap:introduction}.
+	\end{center}
+	\caption{Market share of \MTA{}s}
+	\label{tab:mta-market-share}
+\end{table}
+Other members of the same group are: \name{smail}, \name{zmailer}, \name{mmdf}, and \name{courier-mta}. They all are less important and rarely used, thus ommited here.
+Now follows a small introduction to the five programs chosen for comparison, except \masqmail\ which already was introduced in chapter \ref{chap:introduction}. Longer introductions, including analysis and comparison, were written by \textsc{Jonathan de Boyne Pollard} \citeweb{jdebp}.
 \subsubsection*{sendmail}
 \label{sec:sendmail}
 The latest version is 8.14.3 from May 2008. The program is distributed under the \name{Sendmail License} as both, \freesw\ and proprietary software of \name{Sendmail, Inc.}.
 Further development will go into the project \name{MeTA1} (the former name was \name{sendmail X}) which succeeds \sendmail.
-More information can be found on the \sendmail\ homepage \citeweb{sendmail:homepage} and on \citeweb{wikipedia:sendmail} and \citeweb{jdebp}.
+More information can be found on the \sendmail\ homepage \citeweb{sendmail:homepage}.
 \subsubsection*{exim}
 \label{sec:exim}
 \name{exim} is highly configurable, especially in the field of mail policies. This makes it easy to specify how mail is routed through the system and who is allowed to send email to whom. Also interfaces for integration of virus and spam check programs are provided by design. %fixme: ref
 The program is \freesw, released under the \GPL. The latest stable version is 4.69 from December 2007.
-One finds \name{exim} on its homepage \citeweb{exim:homepage}. More information about it can be retrieved from \citeweb{wikipedia:exim} and \citeweb{jdebp}.
+One finds \name{exim} on its homepage \citeweb{exim:homepage}.
 \subsubsection*{qmail}
 \label{sec:qmail}
 \name{qmail} first introduced many innovative concepts in \mta\ design and is generally seen as the first security-aware \MTA\ developed. %fixme:ref
 %fixme: what about mmdf?
 Since November 2007, \name{qmail} is released in the \name{public domain} which makes it \freesw. The latest release is 1.03 from July 1998.
-The programs homepages are \citeweb{qmail:homepage1} and \citeweb{qmail:homepage2}. Further information about \name{qmail} is available on \citeweb{lifewithqmail}, \citeweb{wikipedia:qmail} and \citeweb{jdebp}.
+The programs homepages are \citeweb{qmail:homepage1} and \citeweb{qmail:homepage2}. Further information about \name{qmail} is available with Dave Sill's ``Life with qmail'' \citeweb{lifewithqmail}.
 \subsubsection*{postfix}
 \label{sec:postfix}
 Today \name{postfix} is taken by many \unix\ systems and \gnulinux\ distributions as default \MTA.
 The latest stable version is numbered 2.5.5 from August 2008. \name{postfix} is covered by the \name{IBM Public License 1.0} which is a \freesw\ license.
-Additional information is available on the program's homepage \citeweb{postfix:homepage}, on \citeweb{jdebp} and \citeweb{wikipedia:postfix}.
+Additional information is available on the program's homepage \citeweb{postfix:homepage}.
 \section{Comparison of MTAs}
-This section tries not to provide an overall \MTA\ comparison, because this is already done by others. Remarkable are the one by Shearer \cite{shearer06} and an email discussion on the mailing list \name{plug@lists.q-linux.com} \citeweb{plug:mtas}. Tabulary overviews may be found at \citeweb{mailsoftware42} and \citeweb{wikipedia:comparison-of-mail-servers}. Hafiz \cite{hafiz05} discusses in detail on \mta\ architecture (comparing \sendmail, \name{qmail}, \name{postfix}, and \name{sendmail X}).
+This section tries not to provide an overall \MTA\ comparison, because this is already done by others. Remarkable are the one by Shearer \cite{shearer06} and an email discussion on the mailing list \name{plug@lists.q-linux.com} \citeweb{plug:mtas}. Tabulary overviews may be found at \citeweb{mailsoftware42} and \citeweb{wikipedia:comparison-of-mail-servers}.
 Here provided is an overview on a selection of important properties, covering the four previously introduced programs. The data comes from the above stated sources and is collected in table \ref{tab:mta-comparison}.
-\url{http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2006-07/1762.html} %sloc evolution of postfix, sendmail, qmail
 \begin{table}
 	\begin{center}
 	\caption{Comparison of MTAs}
 	\label{tab:mta-comparison}
 \end{table}
-\subsection{about market share}
-\url{http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6849}
-\url{http://www.mailradar.com/mailstat/}
-Market share (by Bernstein in 2001): sendmail 42\% , exim 1.6\% , qmail 17\% , postfix 1.6\%.
-masqmail has no relevant market share (debian popcon)
 \subsection{About architecture}
+Hafiz \cite{hafiz05} discusses in detail on \mta\ architecture (comparing \sendmail, \name{qmail}, \name{postfix}, and \name{sendmail X}).
+\url{http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2006-07/1762.html} %sloc evolution of postfix, sendmail, qmail
 \subsection{Security comparison}
+\paragraph{Ref back to \ref{sec:what-will-be-important}}
-<< complexity >>
-<< security >>
-<< simplicity of configuration and administration >>
-<< flexibility of configuration and administration >>
-<< code size >>
-<< code quality >>
-<< documentation (amount and quality) >>
-<< community (amount and quality) >>
-<< used it myself >>
-<< had problems with it >>
-<< quality criteria >> %FIXME
-<< standards of any kind >> %FIXME
-<< how to compare? >> %FIXME
-<< (bewertungsmatrix) objectivity >> %FIXME
-<< how many criteria for ``good''? >> %FIXME
-Ref back to \ref{sec:what-will-be-important}:
 provider indepencence -> easy config:
 \sendmail\ and \name{qmail} appear to have bad positions at this point. Their configuration is complex, thus they would need simplification wrappers around them to provide easy configuration.
 performance not so important:
 security:
 It seems as if all widely used \mta{}s provide good security nowadays. \name{qmail}'s architecture, also used in \name{postfix}, is generally seen to be conceptually more secure, however.
----
+\paragraph{local mail delivery}
 But for example delivery of mail to local users is \emph{not} what \mta{}s should care about, although most \MTA\ are able to deliver mail, and many do. (\name{mail delivery agents}, like \name{procmail} and \name{maildrop}, are the right programs for this job.)
+\paragraph{various protocols}
 protocols like \NAME{SMTP} and \NAME{UUCP}, between which mail is transferred.\footnote{\sendmail{}'s initial purpose was moving mail between \NAME{UUCP}, \NAME{SMTP}, and \name{Berknet}.}
----
-Like its ancestor \sendmail, \masqmail\ is a monolithic program. It consists of only one \emph{setuid root}\footnote{Runs as user root, no matter which user invoked it.}\index{setuid root} binary file, named \path{masqmail}. All functionality is included in it; of course some more comes from dynamic libraries linked.
+<< complexity >> << security >> << simplicity of configuration and administration >> << flexibility of configuration and administration >> << code size >> << code quality >> << documentation (amount and quality) >> << community (amount and quality) >> << used it myself >> << had problems with it >>
+<< quality criteria >> << standards of any kind >> << how to compare? >> << (bewertungsmatrix) objectivity >> << how many criteria for ``good''? >>

Mercurial > docs > diploma

comparison thesis/tex/3-MailTransferAgents.tex @ 130:6ce355da579f