1.1 --- a/thesis/tex/2-MarketAnalysis.tex	Sun Jan 11 20:26:33 2009 +0100
     1.2 +++ b/thesis/tex/2-MarketAnalysis.tex	Sun Jan 11 20:49:50 2009 +0100
     1.3 @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@
     1.4  \subsubsection*{Unified Communication}
     1.5  \name{Unified communication} is the technology aiming to consolidate and integrate all electronic communication and providing access for all kinds of hardware clients. Unified communication tries to bring the three trends here mentioned together. The \name{{\smaller PC} Magazine} has the following definition in its Encyclopedia: ``[Unified communications is t]he real-time redirection of a voice, text or e-mail message to the device closest to the intended recipient at any given time.'' \citeweb{pcmag:uc}. The main goal is to integrate all kinds of communication (asynchronous and synchronous) into one system, hence this requires real-time delivery of data.
     1.6  
     1.7 -According to Michael \person{Osterman}, unified communications is already possible as far as various incoming sources are routed to one storage where messages can be accessed by one or a few clients \cite{osterman08}. But a system with an ``intelligent parser of a single data stream into separate streams that are designed to meet the real-time needs of the user'' is a goal for the future, he says.
     1.8 +According to \person{Michael Osterman}, unified communications is already possible as far as various incoming sources are routed to one storage where messages can be accessed by one or a few clients \cite{osterman08}. But a system with an ``intelligent parser of a single data stream into separate streams that are designed to meet the real-time needs of the user'' is a goal for the future, he says.
     1.9  
    1.10  The question is, whether the integration of synchronous and asynchronous communication does make sense. A communication between one person talking on the phone and the other replying using his instant messenger, certainly does (assumed the text-to-speech and speech-to-text converting is fast and the quality good enough). But transferring large video messages and real-time communication data with the same technology, possibly does not.
    1.11  
    1.12 @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@
    1.13  
    1.14  The easiest way of Unified Messaging is to base it on either email and convert all input sources to email messages (as attachments for instance) and store them in the user's mail box, or use the telephone system as basis and convert text messages to speech. Both is technically possible for asynchronous communication.
    1.15  
    1.16 -Finally, a critical voice from Jesse \person{Freund}, who voted Unified Messaging on top of a hype list, published by \name{Wired.com} ten years ago. His description of the technology ended with the humorous sentences:
    1.17 +Finally, a critical voice from \person{Jesse Freund}, who voted Unified Messaging on top of a hype list, published by \name{Wired.com} ten years ago. His description of the technology ended with the humorous sentences:
    1.18  \begin{quote}
    1.19  Unified messaging is a nice idea, but a tough sell: The reason you bought a cell phone, a pager, and a fax/modem is because each does its job well. No one wants to download voice mail as a series of RealAudio messages or sit through a voice mail bot spelling out email, complete with `semicolon dash end-parenthesis' for ;-).
    1.20  \hfill\cite{wired:hype}
    1.21 @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@
    1.22  The two dimension---a subject and the market---are regarded in relation to each other by the analysis. Here the analysis shall be driven by the market's dimension. Thus first opportunities of the market are identified and split into being strengths or weaknesses of email. Then the same is done for threats of the market.
    1.23  
    1.24  \subsubsection*{Threats}
    1.25 -The market's main threat is \emph{spam}, also named \name{junk mail} or \name{unsolicited commercial email} (\NAME{UCE}). David~A.\ \person{Wheeler} is clear about it:
    1.26 +The market's main threat is \emph{spam}, also named \name{junk mail} or \name{unsolicited commercial email} (\NAME{UCE}). \person{David~A.\ Wheeler} is clear about it:
    1.27  \begin{quote}
    1.28  Since \emph{receivers} pay the bulk of the costs for spam (including most obviously their time to delete all that incoming spam), spam use will continue to rise until effective technical and legal countermeasures are deployed, \emph{or} until people can no longer use email.
    1.29  \hfill\cite{wheeler03}
    1.30 @@ -210,16 +210,16 @@
    1.31  
    1.32  \subsubsection*{New email concepts}
    1.33  
    1.34 -Changing requirements for email communication lead to the need for new concepts and new protocols that cover these requirements. One of these concepts to redesign the electronic mail system is named ``Internet Mail 2000''. It was proposed by Daniel~J.\ \person{Bernstein}, the creator of \qmail. Similar approaches were independently introduced by others too.
    1.35 +Changing requirements for email communication lead to the need for new concepts and new protocols that cover these requirements. One of these concepts to redesign the electronic mail system is named ``Internet Mail 2000''. It was proposed by \person{Daniel~J.\ Bernstein}, the creator of \qmail. Similar approaches were independently introduced by others too.
    1.36  %FIXME: add references for IM2000
    1.37  
    1.38  As main change, the sender has the responsibility for mail storage; only a notification about a mail message gets send to the recipient. He can fetch the message then from the sender's server. This is in contrast to the \NAME{SMTP} mail architecture, where mail and the responsibility for it is transferred from the sender to the receiver (called \name{store-and-forward}).
    1.39  
    1.40  \name{Mail transfer agent}s are still important in this new email architecture, but in a slightly different way. They do not transferring mail itself anymore, but they transport the notifications about new mail to the destinations. This is a quite similar job as they do in the \NAME{SMTP} model. The real transfer of the mail can be done in an arbitrary way, for example via \NAME{FTP} or \NAME{SCP}.
    1.41  
    1.42 -A second concept, this one primary to arm against spam, is David~A.\ \person{Wheeler}'s \name{Guarded Email}, described in \cite{wheeler03}. It requires messages to be recognized as Ham (non-spam) to be accepted, otherwise a challenge-response authentication will be initiated.
    1.43 +A second concept, this one primary to arm against spam, is \person{David~A.\ Wheeler}'s \name{Guarded Email}, described in \cite{wheeler03}. It requires messages to be recognized as Ham (non-spam) to be accepted, otherwise a challenge-response authentication will be initiated.
    1.44  
    1.45 -\name{Hashcash} by Adam \person{Back}---a third concept---tries to limit spam and denial of service attacks \cite{back02}. It requests payment for mail to get accepted. The costs are computing time for generating hash values. Thus sending spam becomes expensive. More information can be found on \citeweb{hashcash:homepage}.
    1.46 +\name{Hashcash} by \person{Adam Back}---a third concept---tries to limit spam and denial of service attacks \cite{back02}. It requests payment for mail to get accepted. The costs are computing time for generating hash values. Thus sending spam becomes expensive. More information can be found on \citeweb{hashcash:homepage}.
    1.47  
    1.48  New concepts, like the ones presented here, are invented to remove problems of the email technology. Internet Mail 2000, for instance, removes the spam and large message transfer problems.
    1.49