1.1 --- a/thesis/tex/2-MailTransferAgents.tex	Sun Nov 16 17:28:25 2008 +0100
     1.2 +++ b/thesis/tex/2-MailTransferAgents.tex	Sun Nov 16 22:29:51 2008 +0100
     1.3 @@ -4,6 +4,10 @@
     1.4  
     1.5  The chosen programs will be presented to the reader in a short overview and with the most important facts. The next chapter will show a comparison of these programs in several disciplines.
     1.6  
     1.7 +\section{Advantages of \MTA{}s}
     1.8 +
     1.9 +<< why are they important? >> %FIXME
    1.10 +
    1.11  
    1.12  \section{Types of \MTA{}s}
    1.13  ``Mail transfer agent'' is a term covering a variety of programs. One thing is common to them: they transfer email from one \emph{thing} to another. These \emph{things} can be hosts, meaning independent machines, or protocols like \NAME{SMTP} and \NAME{UUCP}, between which mail is transfered.\footnote{\sendmail{}'s initial purpose was moving mail between \NAME{UUCP}, \NAME{SMTP}, and \name{Berknet}.}
    1.14 @@ -219,34 +223,39 @@
    1.15  
    1.16  
    1.17  
    1.18 -1) complexity
    1.19 +\subsection{complexity}
    1.20  
    1.21 -2) security
    1.22 +\subsection{security}
    1.23  
    1.24 -3) simplicity of configuration and administration
    1.25 +\subsection{simplicity of configuration and administration}
    1.26  
    1.27 -4) flexibility of configuration and administration
    1.28 +\subsection{flexibility of configuration and administration}
    1.29  
    1.30 -5) code size
    1.31 +\subsection{code size}
    1.32  
    1.33 -6) code quality
    1.34 +\subsection{code quality}
    1.35  
    1.36 -7) documentation (amount and quality)
    1.37 +\subsection{documentation (amount and quality)}
    1.38  
    1.39 -8) community (amount and quality)
    1.40 +\subsection{community (amount and quality)}
    1.41  
    1.42 -9) used it myself
    1.43 +\subsection{used it myself}
    1.44  
    1.45 -10) had problems with it
    1.46 +\subsection{ had problems with it}
    1.47  
    1.48  
    1.49  
    1.50  
    1.51 -% quality criteria
    1.52 -% standards of any kind
    1.53 -% how to compare?
    1.54 -% (bewertungsmatrix) objectivity
    1.55 -% how many criterias for ``good''?
    1.56 +<< quality criteria >> %FIXME
    1.57 +
    1.58 +<< standards of any kind >> %FIXME
    1.59 +
    1.60 +<< how to compare? >> %FIXME
    1.61 +
    1.62 +<< (bewertungsmatrix) objectivity >> %FIXME
    1.63 +
    1.64 +<< how many criterias for ``good''? >> %FIXME
    1.65 +
    1.66  
    1.67  
    1.68