docs/diploma

view thesis/pieces/old/1-Comparision.tex @ 123:f2046b9c5382

spell checking done
author meillo@marmaro.de
date Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:53:34 +0100
parents 72a50aec4464
children
line source
1 \chapter{Comparison of \MTA{}s}
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/
10 \section{First release}
11 sendmail: 1983
13 postfix: 1999
15 qmail: 1996 (first beta 0.70), 1997 (first general 1.0)
17 exim: 1995
19 masqmail: 1999
21 exchange: 1993
24 \section{Lines of code (with sloccount on debian packages)}
25 sendmail: 93k
27 postfix: 92k
29 qmail: 18k
31 exim: 54k
33 masqmail: 14k
35 exchange: (no source available)
38 \section{Architecture}
39 sendmail: monolitic
41 postfix: modular
43 qmail: modular
45 exim: monolitic
47 masqmail: monolitic
49 exchange: (unknown)
52 \section{Design goals}
53 sendmail: flexibility
55 postfix: performance and security
57 qmail: security
59 exim: general, flexible \& extensive facilities for checking
61 masqmail: for non-permanent internet connection
63 exchange: groupware
66 \section{Market share (by Bernstein in 2001)}
67 sendmail: 42\%
69 postfix: 1.6\%
71 qmail: 17\%
73 exim: 1.6\%
75 masqmail: (unknown)
77 exchange: 18\%
82 1) complexity
84 2) security
86 3) simplicity of configuration and administration
88 4) flexibility of configuration and administration
90 5) code size
92 6) code quality
94 7) documentation (amount and quality)
96 8) community (amount and quality)
98 9) used it myself
100 10) had problems with it