--- a/thesis/tex/3-MailTransferAgents.tex	Sun Dec 07 17:29:29 2008 +0100
+++ b/thesis/tex/3-MailTransferAgents.tex	Tue Dec 09 16:04:02 2008 +0100
@@ -68,14 +68,13 @@
 \section{Popular MTAs}
 
 %todo: include market share analyses here
+<< some info about market shares >>
 
 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.
 
 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
 
-\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}. %fixme: need this sentence?
-
-Other members are: \name{smail}, \name{zmailer}, \name{mmdf}, and more; they all are less important and rarely used.
+Other members are: \name{smail}, \name{zmailer}, \name{mmdf}, and \name{courier-mta}; they all are less important and rarely used.
 
 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}.
 
@@ -140,51 +139,44 @@
 
 \section{Comparison of MTAs}
 
-<< general fact in table \ref{tab:mta-comparison} >>
+This section tries not to provide an overall \MTA\ comparison, because this is already done by others: Including 
 
-Refer to \cite{hafiz05}.
+\url{http://shearer.org/MTA_Comparison}
+\url{http://www.geocities.com/mailsoftware42/}
+\url{http://fanf.livejournal.com/50917.html}
+\url{http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2006-07/1762.html}
+
+
+For a discussion on \mta\ architectures (comparing \sendmail, \name{qmail}, \name{postfix}, and \name{sendmail X}) it is refered to Hafiz \cite{hafiz05}.
+
+Here provided is an overview on a selection of important properties, covering the four previously introduced programs. Table \ref{tab:mta-comparison} provides it.
+
 
 \begin{table}
-\begin{tabular}[hbt]{| p{0.13\textwidth} || p{0.13\textwidth} | p{0.13\textwidth} | p{0.13\textwidth} | p{0.13\textwidth} | p{0.13\textwidth} |}
-\hline
-
-              & sendmail & exim & qmail & postfix & masqmail \\
-\hline \hline
-First release & 1983 & 1995 & 1996 & 1999 & 1999 \\
-\hline
-Lines of code (with sloccount on debian packages)& 93k & 54k & 18k & 92k & 14k \\
-\hline
-Architecture & monolithic & monolithic & modular & modular & monolithic \\
-\hline
-Design goals & flexibility & general, flexible \& extensive facilities for checking & security & performance and security & for non-permanent Internet connection \\
-\hline
-Market share (by Bernstein in 2001) & 42\% & 1.6\% & 17\% & 1.6\% & (unknown) \\
-\hline
-
-\end{tabular}
-\caption{Comparison of MTAs}
-\label{tab:mta-comparison}
+	\begin{center}
+		\input{input/mta-comparison.tex}
+	\end{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}
 
 \subsection{Security comparison}
 
 
-\url{http://shearer.org/MTA_Comparison}
-
-\url{http://www.geocities.com/mailsoftware42/}
-
-\url{http://fanf.livejournal.com/50917.html}
-
-\url{http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2006-07/1762.html}
-
-\url{http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6849}
-
-\url{http://www.mailradar.com/mailstat/}
 
 
 
@@ -209,7 +201,7 @@
 
 << used it myself >>
 
-<<  had problems with it >>
+<< had problems with it >>
 
 
 
@@ -226,7 +218,18 @@
 
 
 
-<< from the practice of programming: are the names good? check the significant number of characters. (intern: 31char, extern: 6char caseless; ProgC p.184) >>
+
+
+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:
+\name{postfix} focuses much on performance, this might not be an important point then.
+
+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.
 
 
 ---