1.1 --- a/thesis/tex/3-MailTransferAgents.tex	Tue Jan 20 19:01:25 2009 +0100
     1.2 +++ b/thesis/tex/3-MailTransferAgents.tex	Tue Jan 20 19:01:42 2009 +0100
     1.3 @@ -56,7 +56,8 @@
     1.4  
     1.5  \subsubsection*{Other segmenting}
     1.6  \name{Mail transfer agents} can also be split in other ways.
     1.7 -Due to \sendmail's significance---described in section \ref{sec:sendmail}---compatibility interfaces for \sendmail\ are important for \unix\ \MTA{}s. Being not \emph{sendmail-compatible} may not matter for some fields of action, but makes the program ineligible for serving as a general purpose \MTA\ on \unix\ systems. Hence being sendmail-compatible is a major property of a \mta. %todo: how many MTAs are sendmail-compatible?
     1.8 +
     1.9 +Due to \sendmail's significance in the early times of email, compatibility interfaces for \sendmail\ are important for \unix\ \MTA{}s. The reason is that many mail applications simply the \sendmail\ \MTA\ to be installed on the system. Being not \emph{sendmail-compatible} may not matter for some fields of action, but makes the program ineligible for serving as a general purpose \MTA\ on \unix\ systems. Hence being sendmail-compatible is a major property of a \mta. %todo: how many MTAs are sendmail-compatible?
    1.10  \MTA{}s not having a \emph{sendmail-compatible} interface or not offering it as a compatibility add-on, will not be covered here. One example for such a program is \name{Apache James}.  %FIXME: check if correct
    1.11  
    1.12  Another separation can be done between \freesw\ \MTA{}s and proprietary ones. Many of the \MTA{}s for \unix\ systems are \freesw. Only these are regarded in the following sections, because comparing \freesw\ with proprietary or commercial software is not what typical users of programs like \masqmail\ do. %fixme: what are typical users?
    1.13 @@ -85,7 +86,7 @@
    1.14  
    1.15  \section{Popular MTAs}
    1.16  
    1.17 -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.
    1.18 +This section introduces a selection of popular \MTA{}s; they are the most likely substitutes for \masqmail. All are sendmail-compatible ``smart'' \freesw\ \MTA{}s that focus on mail transfer, as is \masqmail.
    1.19  
    1.20  The programs chosen to be compared, with each other and with \masqmail, are: \sendmail, \exim, \qmail, and \postfix. They are the most important representatives of the regarded group.
    1.21  
    1.22 @@ -179,6 +180,7 @@
    1.23  
    1.24  
    1.25  \section{Comparison of MTAs}
    1.26 +\label{sec:mta-comparison}
    1.27  
    1.28  This section does not try to provide an overall \MTA\ comparison, because this is already done by others. Remarkable comparisons are the one by \person{Dan Shearer} \cite{shearer06} and a discussion on the mailing list \name{plug@lists.q-linux.com} \cite{plug:mtas}. Tabular overviews may be found at \citeweb{mailsoftware42}, \citeweb{wikipedia:comparison-of-mail-servers}, and \cite[section 1.9]{lifewithqmail}.
    1.29