1.1 --- a/thesis/tex/2-MarketAnalysis.tex	Wed Dec 03 23:27:44 2008 +0100
     1.2 +++ b/thesis/tex/2-MarketAnalysis.tex	Thu Dec 04 00:19:19 2008 +0100
     1.3 @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
     1.4  
     1.5  As globalization proceeds and long distance communication becomes more and more important. The future of electronic communication is bright.
     1.6  
     1.7 -Electronic communication includes the following technologies: electronic mail (email), instant messaging (\name{IM}), chats (e.g.\ \NAME{IRC}), short message service (\NAME{SMS}), voicemail, video messages, and Voice over \NAME{IP} (VoIP).
     1.8 +Electronic communication includes the following technologies: electronic mail (email), instant messaging (\name{IM}), chats (e.g.\ \NAME{IRC}), short message service (\NAME{SMS}), voicemail, video messages, and Voice over \NAME{IP} (\NAME{VoIP}).
     1.9  
    1.10  
    1.11  \subsection{Classification}
    1.12 @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@
    1.13  
    1.14  Email ranges in the saturation phase, which is defined by a saturated market, no more products are needed, there is no more growth. This means, email is a technology used by everyone who want to use it. It is a standard technology. The current form of email in the current market is on the top of its life cycle. The future is decline, sooner or later.
    1.15  
    1.16 -But life cycles positions change as the subject or the market changes. An examples is the \name{Flash} animation software. The product's change from a drawing and animation system to a technology for website building, advertising, and movie distribution, and the then changing target market, made it slip back on the life cycle. If the email system would evolve to become the basis for Unified Messaging (see section \ref{sec:unified-messaging}), a similar slip back would be the consequence. An example for a changing market are the \NAME{DVD} standards \NAME{DVD+} and \NAME{DVD-}. With the upcoming next generation formats BlueRay and \NAME{HD-DVD}, a much sooner decline of \NAME{DVD+} and \NAME{DVD-} started, even before reaching their last development steps in storage size. Such can happen to email too, if Unified Messaging is a revolution to the email system instead of an evolution.
    1.17 +But life cycles positions change as the subject or the market changes. An examples is the \name{Flash} animation software. The product's change from a drawing and animation system to a technology for website building, advertising, and movie distribution, and the then changing target market, made it slip back on the life cycle. If the email system would evolve to become the basis for Unified Messaging (see section \ref{sec:unified-messaging}), a similar slip back would be the consequence. An example for a changing market are the \NAME{DVD} standards \NAME{DVD+} and \NAME{DVD$-$}. With the upcoming next generation formats BlueRay and \NAME{HD-DVD}, a much sooner decline of \NAME{DVD+} and \NAME{DVD$-$} started, even before reaching their last development steps in storage size. Such can happen to email too, if Unified Messaging is a revolution to the email system instead of an evolution.
    1.18  
    1.19  
    1.20  
    1.21 @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@
    1.22  
    1.23  
    1.24  \subsubsection*{Unified Communication}
    1.25 -\name{Unified communication} is the technology aiming to consolidate and integrate all electronic communication and providing access for all kinds of hardware clients. Unified communication tries to bring the tree trends here mentioned together. The \name{PC Magazine} has the following definition in its Encyclopedia \citeweb{pcmag:uc}: ``[Unified communications is] The real-time redirection of a voice, text or e-mail message to the device closest to the intended recipient at any given time.'' The main goal is to integrate all kinds of communication (asynchronous and synchronous) into one system, hence this requires real-time delivery of data.
    1.26 +\name{Unified communication} is the technology aiming to consolidate and integrate all electronic communication and providing access for all kinds of hardware clients. Unified communication tries to bring the tree trends here mentioned together. The \name{{\smaller PC} Magazine} has the following definition in its Encyclopedia \citeweb{pcmag:uc}: ``[Unified communications is] The real-time redirection of a voice, text or e-mail message to the device closest to the intended recipient at any given time.'' The main goal is to integrate all kinds of communication (asynchronous and synchronous) into one system, hence this requires real-time delivery of data.
    1.27  
    1.28  According to Michael Osterman \citeweb{howto-def-uc}, unified communications is already possible as far as various incoming sources are routed to one storage where messages can be accessed by one or a few clients. But a system with an ``intelligent parser of a single data stream into separate streams that are designed to meet the real-time needs of the user'' is a goal for the future, he says.
    1.29  
    1.30 @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@
    1.31  
    1.32  The easiest way of unified messaging is to base it on either email and convert all input sources to email messages (as attachments for instance) and store them in the user's mail box. Or use the telephone system as basis and convert text messages to speech. Both is no problem for asynchronous communication.
    1.33  
    1.34 -Finally a critical voice from Jesse Freund, who voted unified messaging on top of a hype list for \name{Wired.com}, ten years ago \cite{wired:hype}. His description of the technology ended with the humorous sentences: ``Unified messaging is a nice idea, but a tough sell: The reason you bought a cell phone, a pager, and a fax/modem is because each does its job well. No one wants to download voicemail as a series of RealAudio messages or sit through a voicemail bot spelling out email, complete with "semicolon dash end-parenthesis" for ;-).''
    1.35 +Finally a critical voice from Jesse Freund, who voted unified messaging on top of a hype list for \name{Wired.com}, ten years ago \cite{wired:hype}. His description of the technology ended with the humorous sentences: ``Unified messaging is a nice idea, but a tough sell: The reason you bought a cell phone, a pager, and a fax/modem is because each does its job well. No one wants to download voicemail as a series of RealAudio messages or sit through a voicemail bot spelling out email, complete with `semicolon dash end-parenthesis' for ;-).''
    1.36  
    1.37  
    1.38  %todo: have a result here?
    1.39 @@ -177,11 +177,11 @@
    1.40  
    1.41  
    1.42  
    1.43 -\subsection{\NAME{SWOT} analysis}
    1.44 +\subsection{SWOT analysis}
    1.45  
    1.46 -A \NAME{SWOT} analysis regards the strengths and weaknesses of a subject against the opportunities and threats of its market. The slightly altered form called Dialectical SWOT analysis, which is used here, is described in \cite{powerof2x2}. SWOT analysises should always focus on a specific specific goal to reach with the product. In this case, the main goal is to make email future-safe.
    1.47 +A \NAME{SWOT} analysis regards the strengths and weaknesses of a subject against the opportunities and threats of its market. The slightly altered form called \name{Dialectical {\smaller SWOT} analysis}, which is used here, is described in \cite{powerof2x2}. \NAME{SWOT} analysises should always focus on a specific specific goal to reach with the product. In this case, the main goal is to make email future-safe.
    1.48  
    1.49 -The market's main threat is \emph{spam}, also named \name{junk mail} or \name{unsolicited commercial email} (\NAME{UCE}). Panda Security and Commtouch state in their \name{Email Threats Trend Report} for the second Quater of 2008: ``Spam levels throughout the second quarter averaged 77\%, ranging from a low of 64\% to a peak of 94\% of all email [...]''\cite[page 4]{panda:email-threats}. The report sees the main reason in the botnets consisting of zombie computers: ``Spam and malware levels remain high for yet another quarter, powered by the brawny yet agile networks of zombie IPs.''\cite[page 1]{panda:email-threats} This is supported by IronPort Systems: ``More than 80 percent of spam now comes from a `zombie'---an infected PC, typically in a consumer broadband network, that has been hijacked by spammers.''\cite{ironport:zombie-computers}. Positiv for MTAs is, that they are not the main source for spam, but it is only a small delight. Spam is a general weakness of the email system, because it can not prevent it.
    1.50 +The market's main threat is \emph{spam}, also named \name{junk mail} or \name{unsolicited commercial email} (\NAME{UCE}). Panda Security and Commtouch state in their \name{Email Threats Trend Report} for the second Quater of 2008: ``Spam levels throughout the second quarter averaged 77\%, ranging from a low of 64\% to a peak of 94\% of all email [...]''\cite[page 4]{panda:email-threats}. The report sees the main reason in the botnets consisting of zombie computers: ``Spam and malware levels remain high for yet another quarter, powered by the brawny yet agile networks of zombie \NAME{IP}s.''\cite[page 1]{panda:email-threats} This is supported by IronPort Systems: ``More than 80 percent of spam now comes from a `zombie'---an infected \NAME{PC}, typically in a consumer broadband network, that has been hijacked by spammers.''\cite{ironport:zombie-computers}. Positiv for \MTA{}s is, that they are not the main source for spam, but it is only a small delight. Spam is a general weakness of the email system, because it can not prevent it.
    1.51  
    1.52  Opportunities of the market are large data transfers, coming from multimedia content, which becomes popular. If email is used as basis for unified messaging, lots of voice and video mail will need to be transfered. Email is weak related to that kind of data: the data needs to be encoded to \NAME{ASCII} and and stresses mail servers a lot.
    1.53  
    1.54 @@ -214,7 +214,7 @@
    1.55               |                  |                  |
    1.56  		\end{verbatim}
    1.57  	\end{center}
    1.58 -	\caption{SWOT analysis for email}
    1.59 +	\caption{\NAME{SWOT} analysis for email}
    1.60  	\label{fig:email-swot}
    1.61  \end{figure}
    1.62  
    1.63 @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@
    1.64  
    1.65  
    1.66  
    1.67 -\subsubsection*{Differences in \freesw}
    1.68 +\subsubsection*{Differences in Free Software}
    1.69  %fixme: where to put this comment ... appears to be relevant
    1.70  %fixme: ... or remove it, because I have to ask this question.
    1.71  << what consumers choose >>
    1.72 @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@
    1.73  
    1.74  
    1.75  \subsubsection*{Provider independence}
    1.76 -Today's email structure is heavily dependent on email providers. This means, most people have email addresses from some provider. These can be the provider of their online connection (e.g.\ \NAME{AOL}, \name{T\~Online}),
    1.77 +Today's email structure is heavily dependent on email providers. This means, most people have email addresses from some provider. These can be the provider of their online connection (e.g.\ \NAME{AOL}, \name{T-Online}),
    1.78  %fixme: check for non-breakable dash
    1.79  freemail provider (e.g.\ \NAME{GMX}, \name{Yahoo}, \name{Hotmail}) or provider that offer enhanced mail services that one needs to pay for. Outgoing mail is send either with the webmail client of the provider or using \name{mail user agent}s sending it to the provider for relay. Incoming mail is read with the webmail client or retrieved from the provider via \NAME{POP3} or \NAME{IMAP} to the local computer to be read in the \name{mail user agent}. This means all mail sending and receiving work is done by the provider.
    1.80  

     2.1 --- a/thesis/tex/3-MailTransferAgents.tex	Wed Dec 03 23:27:44 2008 +0100
     2.2 +++ b/thesis/tex/3-MailTransferAgents.tex	Thu Dec 04 00:19:19 2008 +0100
     2.3 @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
     2.4  
     2.5  
     2.6  
     2.7 -\section{Types of \MTA{}s}
     2.8 +\section{Types of MTAs}
     2.9  ``Mail transfer agent'' is a term covering a variety of programs. One thing is common to them: they transfer email from one machine to another.
    2.10  
    2.11  This is how Bryan Costales defines a \mta\ in \cite{costales97}:
    2.12 @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
    2.13  Following is a classification of \mta{}s into groups of similar programs, regarding what is viewable from the outside.
    2.14  
    2.15  
    2.16 -\subsubsection*{Relay-only \MTA{}s}
    2.17 +\subsubsection*{Relay-only MTAs}
    2.18  \label{subsec:relay-only}
    2.19  This is the most simple kind of \MTA. It transfers mail only to defined \name{smart hosts}\footnote{\name{smart host}s are \MTA{}s that receives email and route it to the actual destination}. \name{Relay-only} \MTA{}s do not receive mail from outside the system, and they do not deliver locally.
    2.20  
    2.21 @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
    2.22  Examples are: \name{Lotus Notes}, \name{Microsoft Exchange}, \name{OpenGroupware.org} and \name{eGroupWare}.
    2.23  
    2.24  
    2.25 -\subsubsection*{``Real'' \MTA{}s}
    2.26 +\subsubsection*{``Real'' MTAs}
    2.27  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''---programs that transfer mail between hosts.
    2.28  
    2.29  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}). They cover everything in between the other two groups.  %FIXME: are postfix and qmail good examples?
    2.30 @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@
    2.31  
    2.32  
    2.33  
    2.34 -\section{Popular \MTA{}s}
    2.35 +\section{Popular MTAs}
    2.36  
    2.37  %todo: include market share analyses here
    2.38  
    2.39 @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@
    2.40  
    2.41  
    2.42  
    2.43 -\subsubsection*{\sendmail}
    2.44 +\subsubsection*{sendmail}
    2.45  \label{sec:sendmail}
    2.46  \sendmail\ is the most popular \mta, since it was one of the first and was shipped as default \MTA{}s by many vendors of \unix\ systems. %fixme: ref
    2.47  
    2.48 @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@
    2.49  
    2.50  
    2.51  
    2.52 -\subsubsection*{\name{exim}}
    2.53 +\subsubsection*{exim}
    2.54  \label{sec:exim}
    2.55  \name{exim} was started in 1995 by Philip Hazel at the \name{University of Cambridge}. It is forked of \name{smail-3}, and inherited the monolitic architecture, similar to \sendmail's. But having no separation of the individual components of the system, like \name{qmail} and \name{postfix} have, did not hurt. Its security is comparably good. %fixme: ref
    2.56  
    2.57 @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@
    2.58  
    2.59  
    2.60  
    2.61 -\subsubsection*{\name{qmail}}
    2.62 +\subsubsection*{qmail}
    2.63  \label{sec:qmail}
    2.64  \name{qmail} is seen by its community as ``a modern SMTP server which makes sendmail obsolete''.%fixme: ref
    2.65  It was written by Daniel~J.\ Bernstein starting in 1995. His primary goal was to create a secure \MTA\ to replace the popular, but vulnerable, \sendmail. %fixme: ref
    2.66 @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@
    2.67  
    2.68  
    2.69  
    2.70 -\subsubsection*{\name{postfix}}
    2.71 +\subsubsection*{postfix}
    2.72  \label{sec:postfix}
    2.73  The \name{postfix} project was started in 1999 at \name{IBM research}, then called \name{VMailer} or \name{IBM Secure Mailer}. Wietse Venema's program ``attempts to be fast, easy to administer, and secure. The outside has a definite Sendmail-ish flavor, but the inside is completely different.''\citeweb{postfix:homepage} In fact, \name{postfix} was mainly designed after qmail's architecture to gain security. But in contrast to \name{qmail} it aims much more on being fast and full-featured.
    2.74  
    2.75 @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@
    2.76  
    2.77  
    2.78  
    2.79 -\section{Comparison of \MTA{}s}
    2.80 +\section{Comparison of MTAs}
    2.81  
    2.82  << general fact in table \ref{tab:mta-comparison} >>
    2.83