1.1 --- a/thesis/tex/1-Candidates.tex	Wed Oct 22 17:18:09 2008 +0200
     1.2 +++ b/thesis/tex/1-Candidates.tex	Thu Oct 23 13:49:07 2008 +0200
     1.3 @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
     1.4  \subsection{``Real'' \MTA{}s}
     1.5  There is a third type of \mta{}s in between the minimalistic \name{relay-only} \MTA{}s and the bloated \name{groupware}. Those programs may be named ``real \MTA{}s'', or ``proper \MTA{}s'', though there is no common name. They are what is meant with the term ``\mta''.
     1.6  
     1.7 -Common to them is their focus on transfering email, while being able to act as \name{smart host}. Their variety ranges from ones very restricted to mail transfer (\name{qmail}) to others already having interfaces for adding further mail processing modules (\name{postfix})---thus everything in between the other two groups.  %FIXME: are postfix and qmail good examples?
     1.8 +Common to them is their focus on transfering email, while being able to act as \name{smart host}. Their variety ranges from ones mostly restricted to mail transfer (\name{qmail}) to others already having interfaces for adding further mail processing modules (\name{postfix})---thus everything in between the other two groups.  %FIXME: are postfix and qmail good examples?
     1.9  
    1.10  This group is of importance in this document. The programs selected for the comparison are ``real \MTA{}s''.
    1.11  
    1.12 @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
    1.13  
    1.14  Hence all \MTA{}s not having a \emph{sendmail-compatible} interface or not offering it as a compatibility addon, will not be covered here.
    1.15  
    1.16 -Examples for this group are: \name{Apache James ???} %FIXME: give an example for non-sendmail-compatible (on unix)
    1.17 +An Examples here is \name{Apache James}.  %FIXME: check if correct
    1.18  
    1.19  
    1.20  \subsection{Non-free software}
    1.21 @@ -62,12 +62,12 @@
    1.22  The programs remaining are \emph{sendmail-compatible} ``smart'' \MTA{}s that focus on mail transfer and are \freesw. 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.
    1.23  
    1.24  For the comparision, five programs are taken. These are: \sendmail, \name{qmail}, \name{postfix}, \name{exim}, and \masqmail. The four alternatives to \masqmail\ are the most important representatives of the regarded group. % FIXME: add ref that affirm that
    1.25 -%TODO: what about having one program as ``outsider'' ...?
    1.26  
    1.27 -Other, but not covered, group members are: %FIXME:  are these all MTAs of that group? why these and not others?
    1.28 -%TODO: what about `courier-mta'?
    1.29 +\name{courier-mta} is also a member of this group, being even closer to \name{groupware} than \name{postfix}. It is excluded here, because the \NAME{IMAP} and webmail parts of the mail server suite are more in focus than its \MTA. Common mail server setups even bundle \name{courier-imap} with \name{postfix}.
    1.30  
    1.31 -Here follows a small introduction to each of the five.
    1.32 +Other members are: \name{smail}, \name{zmailer}, \name{mmdf}, and more; they all are less important and rarely used.
    1.33 +
    1.34 +Following is a small introduction to each of the five programs chosen for comparision.
    1.35  
    1.36  \subsection{\sendmail}
    1.37  \sendmail\ is the most popular \mta. Since it was one of the first \MTA{}s and was shipped by many vendors of \unix\ systems.