docs/diploma

view thesis/tex/1-Comparision.tex @ 63:fbf5165a390f

added questions I asked on debianforum.de
author meillo@marmaro.de
date Sun, 19 Oct 2008 17:58:41 +0200
parents 1412d283624a
children 72a50aec4464
line source
1 \chapter{Comparison of \MTA{}s}
3 % http://www.geocities.com/mailsoftware42/
5 \section{First release}
6 sendmail: 1983
8 postfix: 1999
10 qmail: 1996 (first beta 0.70), 1997 (first general 1.0)
12 exim: 1995
14 masqmail: 1999
16 exchange: 1993
19 \section{Lines of code (with sloccount on debian packages)}
20 sendmail: 93k
22 postfix: 92k
24 qmail: 18k
26 exim: 54k
28 masqmail: 14k
30 exchange: (no source available)
33 \section{Architecture}
34 sendmail: monolitic
36 postfix: modular
38 qmail: modular
40 exim: monolitic
42 masqmail: monolitic
44 exchange: (unknown)
47 \section{Design goals}
48 sendmail: flexibility
50 postfix: performance and security
52 qmail: security
54 exim: general, flexible \& extensive facilities for checking
56 masqmail: for non-permanent internet connection
58 exchange: groupware
61 \section{Market share (by Bernstein in 2001)}
62 sendmail: 42\%
64 postfix: 1.6\%
66 qmail: 17\%
68 exim: 1.6\%
70 masqmail: (unknown)
72 exchange: 18\%
77 1) complexity
79 2) security
81 3) simplicity of configuration and administration
83 4) flexibility of configuration and administration
85 5) code size
87 6) code quality
89 7) documentation (amount and quality)
91 8) community (amount and quality)
93 9) used it myself
95 10) had problems with it