1.1 --- a/thesis/tex/3-MailTransferAgents.tex	Tue Feb 03 17:53:03 2009 +0100
     1.2 +++ b/thesis/tex/3-MailTransferAgents.tex	Tue Feb 03 18:01:33 2009 +0100
     1.3 @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@
     1.4  
     1.5  Now, where does \masqmail\ fit in? It is not groupware nor a simple forwarder, thus it belongs to the ``real \MTA{}s''. Additionally, it is Free Software and is sendmail-compatible to a large degree. This makes it similar to \sendmail, \exim, \qmail, and \postfix. \masqmail\ is intended to be a replacement for those \MTA{}s.
     1.6  
     1.7 -But: It was not designed to be used as a general replacement for them. (See: section \ref{sec:masqmail-target-field}) In fact, \masqmail\ is only a replacement \emph{in some situations}. This primary excludes working in an untrusted environment.
     1.8 +But: It was not designed to be used as a general replacement for them. (See: section~\ref{sec:masqmail-target-field}) In fact, \masqmail\ is only a replacement \emph{in some situations}. This primary excludes working in an untrusted environment.
     1.9  
    1.10  
    1.11  
    1.12 @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@
    1.13  
    1.14  \MTA\ statistics are rare, differ, and good data is hard to collect. These points are bad if good statistics are wanted. Thus it is obvious there are only few available.
    1.15  
    1.16 -Table \ref{tab:mta-market-share} shows the most used \MTA{}s determined by three different statistics. The first was done by \person{Daniel~J.\ Bernstein} (the author of \qmail) in 2001 \cite{bernstein01}. The second is by \person{Simpson} and \person{Bekman} in 2007 and was published on \name{O'ReillyNet} \cite{simpson07}. And the third is from \name{MailRadar.com} with unknown date\footnote{The footer of the website shows ``Copyright 2007'' but more likely does this refer to the whole website.} \citeweb{mailradar:mta-stats}.
    1.17 +Table~\ref{tab:mta-market-share} shows the most used \MTA{}s determined by three different statistics. The first was done by \person{Daniel~J.\ Bernstein} (the author of \qmail) in 2001 \cite{bernstein01}. The second is by \person{Simpson} and \person{Bekman} in 2007 and was published on \name{O'ReillyNet} \cite{simpson07}. And the third is from \name{MailRadar.com} with unknown date\footnote{The footer of the website shows ``Copyright 2007'' but more likely does this refer to the whole website.} \citeweb{mailradar:mta-stats}.
    1.18  
    1.19  \begin{table}
    1.20  	\begin{center}
    1.21 @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@
    1.22  
    1.23  \subsection{The four major Free Software MTAs}
    1.24  
    1.25 -Now follows a small introduction to the four programs chosen for comparison. \masqmail\ is not presented here as it was already introduced in chapter \ref{chap:introduction}. Longer introductions, including analysis and comparison, were written by \person{Jonathan de Boyne Pollard} \cite{jdebp}.
    1.26 +Now follows a small introduction to the four programs chosen for comparison. \masqmail\ is not presented here as it was already introduced in chapter~\ref{chap:introduction}. Longer introductions, including analysis and comparison, were written by \person{Jonathan de Boyne Pollard} \cite{jdebp}.
    1.27  
    1.28  
    1.29  
    1.30 @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@
    1.31  The program was first released with \NAME{BSD} 4.1c in 1983. The latest version is 8.14.3 from May 2008. The program is distributed under the \name{Sendmail License} as both, free and proprietary software.
    1.32  %fixme: write about its importance and about sendmail-compat
    1.33  
    1.34 -Further development will go into the project \name{MeTA1} (the former name was \name{sendmail X}) which succeeds \sendmail.
    1.35 +Further development will go into the project \name{MeTA1} which succeeds \sendmail. The former name of this new project was \name{sendmail~X}.
    1.36  
    1.37  More information can be found on the \sendmail\ homepage \citeweb{sendmail:homepage} and in the, so called, \name{Bat Book} \cite{costales97}.
    1.38  
    1.39 @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@
    1.40  
    1.41  This section does not try to provide a throughout \MTA\ comparison, because this is already done by others. Remarkable comparisons are the one by \person{Dan Shearer} \cite{shearer06} and a discussion on the mailing list \name{plug@lists.q-linux.com} \cite{plug:mtas}. Tabular overviews may be found at \citeweb{mailsoftware42}, \citeweb{wikipedia:comparison-of-mail-servers}, and \cite[section 1.9]{lifewithqmail}.
    1.42  
    1.43 -Here provided is an overview on important properties of the four previously introduced \MTA{}s. The data comes from the above stated sources and is collected in table \ref{tab:mta-comparison}\footnote{The lines of code were measured with \person{David~A.\ Wheeler}'s \name{sloccount} \citeweb{sloccount}.}.
    1.44 +Here provided is an overview on important properties of the four previously introduced \MTA{}s. The data comes from the above stated sources and is collected in table~\ref{tab:mta-comparison}\footnote{The lines of code were measured with \person{David~A.\ Wheeler}'s \name{sloccount} \citeweb{sloccount}.}.
    1.45  
    1.46  \begin{table}
    1.47  	\begin{center}
    1.48 @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@
    1.49  
    1.50  \subsubsection*{Architecture}
    1.51  
    1.52 -Architecture is most important when comparing \MTA{}s. Many other properties of a program depend on its architecture. \person{Munawar Hafiz} discusses in detail on \MTA\ architecture, comparing \sendmail, \qmail, \postfix, and \name{sendmail X} \cite{hafiz05}. \person{Jonathan de Boyne Pollard}'s \MTA\ review \cite{jdebp} is a source too.
    1.53 +Architecture is most important when comparing \MTA{}s. Many other properties of a program depend on its architecture. \person{Munawar Hafiz} discusses in detail on \MTA\ architecture, comparing \sendmail, \qmail, \postfix, and \name{sendmail~X} \cite{hafiz05}. \person{Jonathan de Boyne Pollard}'s \MTA\ review \cite{jdebp} is a source too.
    1.54  
    1.55  Two different architecture types show off: monolithic and modular \MTA{}s.
    1.56  
    1.57 @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@
    1.58  
    1.59  Modular \MTA{}s are \NAME{MMDF}, \qmail, \postfix, and \name{MeTA1}. They consist of several programs, each doing only a part of the overall job. The different programs run with the least permissions they need, \emph{setuid root} can be avoided completely.
    1.60  
    1.61 -The architecture does not directly define the program's security, but ``[t]he goal of making a software secure can be better achieved by making the design simple and easier to understand and verify'' \cite[chapter 6]{hafiz05}. \exim, though being monolithic, has a fairly clean security record. But it is very hard to keep the security up as the program growth. \person{Wietse Venema} (the author of \postfix) says, it was the architecture that enabled \postfix\ to grow without running into security problems \cite[page 13]{venema:postfix-growth}.
    1.62 +The architecture does not directly define the program's security, but ``[t]he goal of making a software secure can be better achieved by making the design simple and easier to understand and verify'' \cite[chapter~6]{hafiz05}. \exim, though being monolithic, has a fairly clean security record. But it is very hard to keep the security up as the program growth. \person{Wietse Venema} (the author of \postfix) says, it was the architecture that enabled \postfix\ to grow without running into security problems \cite[page 13]{venema:postfix-growth}.
    1.63  
    1.64  The modular design, with each sub-program doing one part of the overall job, conforms to the \name{Unix Philosophy}. The Unix Philosophy \cite{gancarz95} demands ``small is beautiful'' and ``make each program do one thing well''. Monolithic \MTA{}s fail here.
    1.65  
    1.66 @@ -227,7 +227,7 @@
    1.67  
    1.68  \subsubsection*{Future trends}
    1.69  
    1.70 -In chapter \ref{chap:market-analysis}, it was tried to figure out trends and future requirements for \MTA{}s. The four programs are compared on these possible future requirements now.
    1.71 +In chapter~\ref{chap:market-analysis}, it was tried to figure out trends and future requirements for \MTA{}s. The four programs are compared on these possible future requirements now.
    1.72  
    1.73  \paragraph{Provider independence}
    1.74  The first trend was provider independence, which requires easy configuration. \postfix\ seems to do best here. It uses primary two configuration files (\path{master.cf} and \path{main.cf}) which are easy to manage. \sendmail\ appears to have a bad position. Its configuration file \path{sendmail.cf} is cryptic and very complex (it has legendary Turing-completeness) thus it needs simplification wrappers around it to provide easier configuration. They exist in form of the \name{m4} macros that generate the \path{sendmail.cf} file. Unfortunately, adjusting the generated result by hand appears to be necessary for non-trivial configurations. \qmail's configuration files are simple but the whole system is complex to set up; it requires various system users and \qmail\ is hardly usable without applying several patches that add functionality which is required nowadays. \name{netqmail} is the community's effort to help in the latter point. \exim\ has only one single configuration file (\path{exim.conf}) which suffers most from its flexibility---like in \sendmail's case. Flexibility and easy configuration are almost always contrary goals.