# HG changeset patch
# User meillo@marmaro.de
# Date 1224762547 -7200
# Node ID 177cf193755492b996260400fab70a35c2c11f2f
# Parent  821d195e4237ef71341d4f413922ae258f3d5f1f
text rework

diff -r 821d195e4237 -r 177cf1937554 thesis/tex/1-Candidates.tex
--- a/thesis/tex/1-Candidates.tex	Wed Oct 22 17:18:09 2008 +0200
+++ b/thesis/tex/1-Candidates.tex	Thu Oct 23 13:49:07 2008 +0200
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
 \subsection{``Real'' \MTA{}s}
 There is a third type of \mta{}s in between the minimalistic \name{relay-only} \MTA{}s and the bloated \name{groupware}. Those programs may be named ``real \MTA{}s'', or ``proper \MTA{}s'', though there is no common name. They are what is meant with the term ``\mta''.
 
-Common to them is their focus on transfering email, while being able to act as \name{smart host}. Their variety ranges from ones very restricted to mail transfer (\name{qmail}) to others already having interfaces for adding further mail processing modules (\name{postfix})---thus everything in between the other two groups.  %FIXME: are postfix and qmail good examples?
+Common to them is their focus on transfering email, while being able to act as \name{smart host}. Their variety ranges from ones mostly restricted to mail transfer (\name{qmail}) to others already having interfaces for adding further mail processing modules (\name{postfix})---thus everything in between the other two groups.  %FIXME: are postfix and qmail good examples?
 
 This group is of importance in this document. The programs selected for the comparison are ``real \MTA{}s''.
 
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
 
 Hence all \MTA{}s not having a \emph{sendmail-compatible} interface or not offering it as a compatibility addon, will not be covered here.
 
-Examples for this group are: \name{Apache James ???} %FIXME: give an example for non-sendmail-compatible (on unix)
+An Examples here is \name{Apache James}.  %FIXME: check if correct
 
 
 \subsection{Non-free software}
@@ -62,12 +62,12 @@
 The programs remaining are \emph{sendmail-compatible} ``smart'' \MTA{}s that focus on mail transfer and are \freesw. One would not use a program for a job it is not suited for. Therefor only \mta{}s that are mostly similar to \masqmail\ are regarded.
 
 For the comparision, five programs are taken. These are: \sendmail, \name{qmail}, \name{postfix}, \name{exim}, and \masqmail. The four alternatives to \masqmail\ are the most important representatives of the regarded group. % FIXME: add ref that affirm that
-%TODO: what about having one program as ``outsider'' ...?
 
-Other, but not covered, group members are: %FIXME:  are these all MTAs of that group? why these and not others?
-%TODO: what about `courier-mta'?
+\name{courier-mta} is also a member of this group, being even closer to \name{groupware} than \name{postfix}. It is excluded here, because the \NAME{IMAP} and webmail parts of the mail server suite are more in focus than its \MTA. Common mail server setups even bundle \name{courier-imap} with \name{postfix}.
 
-Here follows a small introduction to each of the five.
+Other members are: \name{smail}, \name{zmailer}, \name{mmdf}, and more; they all are less important and rarely used.
+
+Following is a small introduction to each of the five programs chosen for comparision.
 
 \subsection{\sendmail}
 \sendmail\ is the most popular \mta. Since it was one of the first \MTA{}s and was shipped by many vendors of \unix\ systems.