docs/diploma

view thesis/tex/1-Comparision.tex @ 83:2dd80fecdf13

find changesets by author, revision, files, or words in the commit message
mentioned the version regarded about features
author meillo@marmaro.de
date Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:08:54 +0100
parents fbf5165a390f
children
line source
1 \chapter{Comparison of \MTA{}s}
2
3 % http://shearer.org/MTA_Comparison
4 % http://www.geocities.com/mailsoftware42/
5 % http://fanf.livejournal.com/50917.html
6 % http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2006-07/1762.html
7 % http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6849
8 % http://www.mailradar.com/mailstat/
9
10 \section{First release}
11 sendmail: 1983
12
13 postfix: 1999
14
15 qmail: 1996 (first beta 0.70), 1997 (first general 1.0)
16
17 exim: 1995
18
19 masqmail: 1999
20
21 exchange: 1993
22
23
24 \section{Lines of code (with sloccount on debian packages)}
25 sendmail: 93k
26
27 postfix: 92k
28
29 qmail: 18k
30
31 exim: 54k
32
33 masqmail: 14k
34
35 exchange: (no source available)
36
37
38 \section{Architecture}
39 sendmail: monolitic
40
41 postfix: modular
42
43 qmail: modular
44
45 exim: monolitic
46
47 masqmail: monolitic
48
49 exchange: (unknown)
50
51
52 \section{Design goals}
53 sendmail: flexibility
54
55 postfix: performance and security
56
57 qmail: security
58
59 exim: general, flexible \& extensive facilities for checking
60
61 masqmail: for non-permanent internet connection
62
63 exchange: groupware
64
65
66 \section{Market share (by Bernstein in 2001)}
67 sendmail: 42\%
68
69 postfix: 1.6\%
70
71 qmail: 17\%
72
73 exim: 1.6\%
74
75 masqmail: (unknown)
76
77 exchange: 18\%
78
79
80
81
82 1) complexity
83
84 2) security
85
86 3) simplicity of configuration and administration
87
88 4) flexibility of configuration and administration
89
90 5) code size
91
92 6) code quality
93
94 7) documentation (amount and quality)
95
96 8) community (amount and quality)
97
98 9) used it myself
99
100 10) had problems with it