1.1 --- a/thesis/tex/3-MailTransferAgents.tex	Sun Dec 07 17:29:29 2008 +0100
     1.2 +++ b/thesis/tex/3-MailTransferAgents.tex	Tue Dec 09 16:04:02 2008 +0100
     1.3 @@ -68,14 +68,13 @@
     1.4  \section{Popular MTAs}
     1.5  
     1.6  %todo: include market share analyses here
     1.7 +<< some info about market shares >>
     1.8  
     1.9  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.
    1.10  
    1.11  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
    1.12  
    1.13 -\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?
    1.14 -
    1.15 -Other members are: \name{smail}, \name{zmailer}, \name{mmdf}, and more; they all are less important and rarely used.
    1.16 +Other members are: \name{smail}, \name{zmailer}, \name{mmdf}, and \name{courier-mta}; they all are less important and rarely used.
    1.17  
    1.18  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}.
    1.19  
    1.20 @@ -140,51 +139,44 @@
    1.21  
    1.22  \section{Comparison of MTAs}
    1.23  
    1.24 -<< general fact in table \ref{tab:mta-comparison} >>
    1.25 +This section tries not to provide an overall \MTA\ comparison, because this is already done by others: Including 
    1.26  
    1.27 -Refer to \cite{hafiz05}.
    1.28 +\url{http://shearer.org/MTA_Comparison}
    1.29 +\url{http://www.geocities.com/mailsoftware42/}
    1.30 +\url{http://fanf.livejournal.com/50917.html}
    1.31 +\url{http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2006-07/1762.html}
    1.32 +
    1.33 +
    1.34 +For a discussion on \mta\ architectures (comparing \sendmail, \name{qmail}, \name{postfix}, and \name{sendmail X}) it is refered to Hafiz \cite{hafiz05}.
    1.35 +
    1.36 +Here provided is an overview on a selection of important properties, covering the four previously introduced programs. Table \ref{tab:mta-comparison} provides it.
    1.37 +
    1.38  
    1.39  \begin{table}
    1.40 -\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} |}
    1.41 -\hline
    1.42 -
    1.43 -              & sendmail & exim & qmail & postfix & masqmail \\
    1.44 -\hline \hline
    1.45 -First release & 1983 & 1995 & 1996 & 1999 & 1999 \\
    1.46 -\hline
    1.47 -Lines of code (with sloccount on debian packages)& 93k & 54k & 18k & 92k & 14k \\
    1.48 -\hline
    1.49 -Architecture & monolithic & monolithic & modular & modular & monolithic \\
    1.50 -\hline
    1.51 -Design goals & flexibility & general, flexible \& extensive facilities for checking & security & performance and security & for non-permanent Internet connection \\
    1.52 -\hline
    1.53 -Market share (by Bernstein in 2001) & 42\% & 1.6\% & 17\% & 1.6\% & (unknown) \\
    1.54 -\hline
    1.55 -
    1.56 -\end{tabular}
    1.57 -\caption{Comparison of MTAs}
    1.58 -\label{tab:mta-comparison}
    1.59 +	\begin{center}
    1.60 +		\input{input/mta-comparison.tex}
    1.61 +	\end{center}
    1.62 +	\caption{Comparison of MTAs}
    1.63 +	\label{tab:mta-comparison}
    1.64  \end{table}
    1.65  
    1.66  
    1.67  \subsection{about market share}
    1.68 +\url{http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6849}
    1.69 +
    1.70 +\url{http://www.mailradar.com/mailstat/}
    1.71 +
    1.72 +Market share (by Bernstein in 2001): sendmail 42\% , exim 1.6\% , qmail 17\% , postfix 1.6\%.
    1.73 +masqmail has no relevant market share (debian popcon)
    1.74 +
    1.75 +
    1.76 +
    1.77  
    1.78  \subsection{About architecture}
    1.79  
    1.80  \subsection{Security comparison}
    1.81  
    1.82  
    1.83 -\url{http://shearer.org/MTA_Comparison}
    1.84 -
    1.85 -\url{http://www.geocities.com/mailsoftware42/}
    1.86 -
    1.87 -\url{http://fanf.livejournal.com/50917.html}
    1.88 -
    1.89 -\url{http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2006-07/1762.html}
    1.90 -
    1.91 -\url{http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6849}
    1.92 -
    1.93 -\url{http://www.mailradar.com/mailstat/}
    1.94  
    1.95  
    1.96  
    1.97 @@ -209,7 +201,7 @@
    1.98  
    1.99  << used it myself >>
   1.100  
   1.101 -<<  had problems with it >>
   1.102 +<< had problems with it >>
   1.103  
   1.104  
   1.105  
   1.106 @@ -226,7 +218,18 @@
   1.107  
   1.108  
   1.109  
   1.110 -<< from the practice of programming: are the names good? check the significant number of characters. (intern: 31char, extern: 6char caseless; ProgC p.184) >>
   1.111 +
   1.112 +
   1.113 +Ref back to \ref{sec:what-will-be-important}:
   1.114 +
   1.115 +provider indepencence -> easy config:
   1.116 +\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.
   1.117 +
   1.118 +performance not so important:
   1.119 +\name{postfix} focuses much on performance, this might not be an important point then.
   1.120 +
   1.121 +security:
   1.122 +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.
   1.123  
   1.124  
   1.125  ---