1.1 --- a/thesis/tex/4-MasqmailsFuture.tex	Tue Jan 13 17:17:41 2009 +0100
     1.2 +++ b/thesis/tex/4-MasqmailsFuture.tex	Tue Jan 13 17:18:25 2009 +0100
     1.3 @@ -5,6 +5,26 @@
     1.4  
     1.5  
     1.6  
     1.7 +---
     1.8 +
     1.9 +\textbf{Full featured or stripped down}
    1.10 +
    1.11 +Here shows a misfit off: On the one hand does \masqmail\ want to be a \sendmail\ replacement. But on the other hand, is it not designed to be used like \sendmail. If \masqmail\ is inteded to replace other \MTA{}s, then one may replace another one with it. Hence it must be secure enough. It either needs the security features or must drop the unsecure funtionality. The second option, however, leads to being \emph{no} replacement for other \MTA{}s. It is a valid decision to not be a replacement for \sendmail\ or thelike, but this is a design decision---the change of a primary goal.
    1.12 +
    1.13 +If \masqmail\ should be an \MTA\ to replace others, a switch to a better suited architecture that provides good security and extendability by design, seems required. But if \masqmail\ is wanted to cover some special jobs, not to replace common \MTA{}s, then its architecture depends on the special requirements of the specific job; \MTA\ architectures, like discussed by \person{Hafiz}, may be inadequate.
    1.14 +
    1.15 +What future is to choose for \masqmail---one to be a full featured \MTA, or one to be a stipped down \MTA\ for special jobs?
    1.16 +
    1.17 +The critical point to discuss upon is surely the listening on a port to accepte messages from outside via \NAME{SMTP} (herafter also refered to as the \NAME{SMTP}-in channel). This feature is required for an \MTA\ to be a \name{smart host}, to relay mail. But running as deamon and listening on a port requires much more security effort, because the program is put in direct contact with attackers and other bad guys.
    1.18 +
    1.19 +\MTA{}s without \SMTP-in channels can not receive mail from arbitrary outside hosts. They are only invoked by local users. This lowers the security need a lot---however, security is a general goal and still required, but on a lower level. Unfortunately, as they do not receive mail anymore (except by local submission), they are just better \name{forwarders} that are able to send mail directly to the destination.
    1.20 +
    1.21 +This is not what \masqmail\ was intended to be. Programs that cover this purpose are available; one is \name{msmtp}.
    1.22 +
    1.23 +\masqmail\ shall be a complete \mta. It shall be able to replace ones like \sendmail.
    1.24 +
    1.25 +---
    1.26 +
    1.27  
    1.28  
    1.29  
    1.30 @@ -15,7 +35,6 @@
    1.31  
    1.32  
    1.33  
    1.34 -
    1.35  \subsection{Functional requirements}
    1.36  
    1.37  Functional requirements are about the function of the software. They define what the program can do and in what way.
    1.38 @@ -218,7 +237,8 @@
    1.39  \begin{figure}
    1.40  	\begin{center}
    1.41  		\vspace*{2ex}
    1.42 -		\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{img/callgraph.eps}
    1.43 +		%\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{img/callgraph.eps}
    1.44 +		\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{img/masqmail-3-omitlog5.eps}
    1.45  	\end{center}
    1.46  	\caption{Call graph of \masqmail\ to show its internal structure}
    1.47  	\label{fig:masqmail-arch}