1.1 --- a/thesis/tex/2-FutureOfCommunication.tex	Thu Nov 13 15:22:11 2008 +0100
     1.2 +++ b/thesis/tex/2-FutureOfCommunication.tex	Thu Nov 13 15:30:25 2008 +0100
     1.3 @@ -86,6 +86,12 @@
     1.4  %FIXME: add references for IM2000
     1.5  
     1.6  
     1.7 +
     1.8 +\section{\NAME{SWOT} analysis}
     1.9 +%TODO
    1.10 +
    1.11 +
    1.12 +
    1.13  \section{What will be important}
    1.14  \label{sec:important-for-mtas}
    1.15  Now that it is explained why email will survive (in some changed but related form), it is time to think about the properties required for \mta{}s in the next years. As the fields and kinds of usage change, the requirement change too.
    1.16 @@ -112,20 +118,3 @@
    1.17  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.
    1.18  
    1.19  In summary: easy configuration, aswell as the somehow opposed flexibility will be important for future \mta{}s. Also will it be security, but not performance. \MTA{}s might become more commodity software, like web servers already are today, with the purpose to include it in many systems and the need of minimal configuration.
    1.20 -
    1.21 -
    1.22 -\section{\masqmail\ in five years}
    1.23 -\label{sec:masqmail-in-5-years}
    1.24 -Now how could \masqmail\ be like in, say, five years?
    1.25 -%requirements
    1.26 -%which parts to do
    1.27 -%how to make masqmail future-safe
    1.28 -
    1.29 -%how to advertise masqmail
    1.30 -%difference for free software
    1.31 -%why is it worth to revive masqmail?
    1.32 -
    1.33 -
    1.34 -\section{How would \masqmail\ be designed now}
    1.35 -%what would be needed
    1.36 -%would one create it at all?