1.1 --- a/thesis/tex/3-MailTransferAgents.tex	Tue Dec 09 18:01:42 2008 +0100
     1.2 +++ b/thesis/tex/3-MailTransferAgents.tex	Wed Dec 10 08:31:12 2008 +0100
     1.3 @@ -67,16 +67,24 @@
     1.4  
     1.5  \section{Popular MTAs}
     1.6  
     1.7 -%todo: include market share analyses here
     1.8 -<< some info about market shares >>
     1.9 +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.
    1.10  
    1.11 -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.
    1.12 +The programs chosen are: \sendmail, \name{exim}, \name{qmail}, and \name{postfix}. They are the most important representatives of the regarded group. Although \MTA\ statistics are rare, FIXME(have different results), and good data is hard to collect, these programs tend to stay near the top.
    1.13  
    1.14 -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
    1.15 +Table \ref{tab:mta-market-share} shows the Top 10 \MTA{}s of three different statistics. The first published by \name{O'ReillyNet} in YYYY \citeweb{oreillynet:mta-stats} , the second by \name{Mailradar.com} from YYYY \citeweb{mailradar:mta-stats} , and the third by \textsc{Daniel~J.\ Bernstein} (the author of \name{qmail}) done in 2001 \citeweb{djb:mta-stats}.
    1.16  
    1.17 -Other members are: \name{smail}, \name{zmailer}, \name{mmdf}, and \name{courier-mta}; they all are less important and rarely used.
    1.18 +\begin{table}
    1.19 +	\begin{center}
    1.20 +		\input{input/mta-market-share.tex}
    1.21 +	\end{center}
    1.22 +	\caption{Market share of \MTA{}s}
    1.23 +	\label{tab:mta-market-share}
    1.24 +\end{table}
    1.25  
    1.26 -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}.
    1.27 +Other members of the same group are: \name{smail}, \name{zmailer}, \name{mmdf}, and \name{courier-mta}. They all are less important and rarely used, thus ommited here.
    1.28 +
    1.29 +
    1.30 +Now follows a small introduction to the five programs chosen for comparison, except \masqmail\ which already was introduced in chapter \ref{chap:introduction}. Longer introductions, including analysis and comparison, were written by \textsc{Jonathan de Boyne Pollard} \citeweb{jdebp}.
    1.31  
    1.32  
    1.33  
    1.34 @@ -92,7 +100,7 @@
    1.35  
    1.36  Further development will go into the project \name{MeTA1} (the former name was \name{sendmail X}) which succeeds \sendmail.
    1.37  
    1.38 -More information can be found on the \sendmail\ homepage \citeweb{sendmail:homepage} and on \citeweb{wikipedia:sendmail} and \citeweb{jdebp}.
    1.39 +More information can be found on the \sendmail\ homepage \citeweb{sendmail:homepage}.
    1.40  
    1.41  
    1.42  
    1.43 @@ -104,7 +112,7 @@
    1.44  
    1.45  The program is \freesw, released under the \GPL. The latest stable version is 4.69 from December 2007.
    1.46  
    1.47 -One finds \name{exim} on its homepage \citeweb{exim:homepage}. More information about it can be retrieved from \citeweb{wikipedia:exim} and \citeweb{jdebp}.
    1.48 +One finds \name{exim} on its homepage \citeweb{exim:homepage}.
    1.49  
    1.50  
    1.51  
    1.52 @@ -118,7 +126,7 @@
    1.53  
    1.54  Since November 2007, \name{qmail} is released in the \name{public domain} which makes it \freesw. The latest release is 1.03 from July 1998.
    1.55  
    1.56 -The programs homepages are \citeweb{qmail:homepage1} and \citeweb{qmail:homepage2}. Further information about \name{qmail} is available on \citeweb{lifewithqmail}, \citeweb{wikipedia:qmail} and \citeweb{jdebp}.
    1.57 +The programs homepages are \citeweb{qmail:homepage1} and \citeweb{qmail:homepage2}. Further information about \name{qmail} is available with Dave Sill's ``Life with qmail'' \citeweb{lifewithqmail}.
    1.58  
    1.59  
    1.60  
    1.61 @@ -130,7 +138,7 @@
    1.62  
    1.63  The latest stable version is numbered 2.5.5 from August 2008. \name{postfix} is covered by the \name{IBM Public License 1.0} which is a \freesw\ license.
    1.64  
    1.65 -Additional information is available on the program's homepage \citeweb{postfix:homepage}, on \citeweb{jdebp} and \citeweb{wikipedia:postfix}.
    1.66 +Additional information is available on the program's homepage \citeweb{postfix:homepage}.
    1.67  
    1.68  
    1.69  
    1.70 @@ -139,13 +147,10 @@
    1.71  
    1.72  \section{Comparison of MTAs}
    1.73  
    1.74 -This section tries not to provide an overall \MTA\ comparison, because this is already done by others. Remarkable are the one by Shearer \cite{shearer06} and an email discussion on the mailing list \name{plug@lists.q-linux.com} \citeweb{plug:mtas}. Tabulary overviews may be found at \citeweb{mailsoftware42} and \citeweb{wikipedia:comparison-of-mail-servers}. Hafiz \cite{hafiz05} discusses in detail on \mta\ architecture (comparing \sendmail, \name{qmail}, \name{postfix}, and \name{sendmail X}).
    1.75 +This section tries not to provide an overall \MTA\ comparison, because this is already done by others. Remarkable are the one by Shearer \cite{shearer06} and an email discussion on the mailing list \name{plug@lists.q-linux.com} \citeweb{plug:mtas}. Tabulary overviews may be found at \citeweb{mailsoftware42} and \citeweb{wikipedia:comparison-of-mail-servers}.
    1.76  
    1.77  Here provided is an overview on a selection of important properties, covering the four previously introduced programs. The data comes from the above stated sources and is collected in table \ref{tab:mta-comparison}.
    1.78  
    1.79 -\url{http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2006-07/1762.html} %sloc evolution of postfix, sendmail, qmail
    1.80 -
    1.81 -
    1.82  
    1.83  
    1.84  \begin{table}
    1.85 @@ -157,19 +162,16 @@
    1.86  \end{table}
    1.87  
    1.88  
    1.89 -\subsection{about market share}
    1.90 -\url{http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6849}
    1.91 -
    1.92 -\url{http://www.mailradar.com/mailstat/}
    1.93 -
    1.94 -Market share (by Bernstein in 2001): sendmail 42\% , exim 1.6\% , qmail 17\% , postfix 1.6\%.
    1.95 -masqmail has no relevant market share (debian popcon)
    1.96 -
    1.97 -
    1.98 -
    1.99  
   1.100  \subsection{About architecture}
   1.101  
   1.102 +Hafiz \cite{hafiz05} discusses in detail on \mta\ architecture (comparing \sendmail, \name{qmail}, \name{postfix}, and \name{sendmail X}).
   1.103 +
   1.104 +
   1.105 +\url{http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2006-07/1762.html} %sloc evolution of postfix, sendmail, qmail
   1.106 +
   1.107 +
   1.108 +
   1.109  \subsection{Security comparison}
   1.110  
   1.111  
   1.112 @@ -177,46 +179,7 @@
   1.113  
   1.114  
   1.115  
   1.116 -
   1.117 -
   1.118 -<< complexity >>
   1.119 -
   1.120 -<< security >>
   1.121 -
   1.122 -<< simplicity of configuration and administration >>
   1.123 -
   1.124 -<< flexibility of configuration and administration >>
   1.125 -
   1.126 -<< code size >>
   1.127 -
   1.128 -<< code quality >>
   1.129 -
   1.130 -<< documentation (amount and quality) >>
   1.131 -
   1.132 -<< community (amount and quality) >>
   1.133 -
   1.134 -<< used it myself >>
   1.135 -
   1.136 -<< had problems with it >>
   1.137 -
   1.138 -
   1.139 -
   1.140 -
   1.141 -<< quality criteria >> %FIXME
   1.142 -
   1.143 -<< standards of any kind >> %FIXME
   1.144 -
   1.145 -<< how to compare? >> %FIXME
   1.146 -
   1.147 -<< (bewertungsmatrix) objectivity >> %FIXME
   1.148 -
   1.149 -<< how many criteria for ``good''? >> %FIXME
   1.150 -
   1.151 -
   1.152 -
   1.153 -
   1.154 -
   1.155 -Ref back to \ref{sec:what-will-be-important}:
   1.156 +\paragraph{Ref back to \ref{sec:what-will-be-important}}
   1.157  
   1.158  provider indepencence -> easy config:
   1.159  \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.
   1.160 @@ -228,15 +191,22 @@
   1.161  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.
   1.162  
   1.163  
   1.164 ----
   1.165  
   1.166 +\paragraph{local mail delivery}
   1.167  But for example delivery of mail to local users is \emph{not} what \mta{}s should care about, although most \MTA\ are able to deliver mail, and many do. (\name{mail delivery agents}, like \name{procmail} and \name{maildrop}, are the right programs for this job.)
   1.168  
   1.169  
   1.170 +\paragraph{various protocols}
   1.171  protocols like \NAME{SMTP} and \NAME{UUCP}, between which mail is transferred.\footnote{\sendmail{}'s initial purpose was moving mail between \NAME{UUCP}, \NAME{SMTP}, and \name{Berknet}.}
   1.172  
   1.173  
   1.174 ----
   1.175  
   1.176  
   1.177 -Like its ancestor \sendmail, \masqmail\ is a monolithic program. It consists of only one \emph{setuid root}\footnote{Runs as user root, no matter which user invoked it.}\index{setuid root} binary file, named \path{masqmail}. All functionality is included in it; of course some more comes from dynamic libraries linked.
   1.178 +
   1.179 +
   1.180 +
   1.181 +
   1.182 +<< complexity >> << security >> << simplicity of configuration and administration >> << flexibility of configuration and administration >> << code size >> << code quality >> << documentation (amount and quality) >> << community (amount and quality) >> << used it myself >> << had problems with it >>
   1.183 +
   1.184 +
   1.185 +<< quality criteria >> << standards of any kind >> << how to compare? >> << (bewertungsmatrix) objectivity >> << how many criteria for ``good''? >>