1.1 --- a/thesis/tex/2-MarketAnalysis.tex	Tue Jan 06 10:13:07 2009 +0100
     1.2 +++ b/thesis/tex/2-MarketAnalysis.tex	Tue Jan 06 18:04:18 2009 +0100
     1.3 @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
     1.4  
     1.5  \section{Electronic communication technologies}
     1.6  
     1.7 -Electronic communication is ``communication by computer'', according to the \name{WordNet} database of \name{Princeton University} \citeweb{wordnet}. Mobile phones and telefax machines should be seen as computers here too. The \name{Science Glossary} of the \name{Pennsylvania Department of Education} describes electronic communication as ``System for the transmission of information using electronic technology (e.g., digital cameras, cellular telephones, Internet, television, fiber optics).'' \citeweb{science-glossary-pa}.
     1.8 +Electronic communication is ``communication by computer'', according to the \name{WordNet} database of \name{Princeton University} \citeweb{wordnet}. Mobile phones and fax machines should be seen as computers here too. The \name{Science Glossary} of the \name{Pennsylvania Department of Education} describes electronic communication as ``System for the transmission of information using electronic technology (e.g., digital cameras, cellular telephones, Internet, television, fiber optics).'' \citeweb{science-glossary-pa}.
     1.9  
    1.10  Electronic communication needs no transport of tangible things, only electrons, photons, or radio waves need to be transmitted. Thus electronic communication is fast in general. With costs mainly for infrastructure and very low costs for data transmission, electronic communication is also cheap communication. As underlying transport infrastructure, primary the Internet is used; thus electronic communication is available nearly everywhere around the world. These properties---fast, cheap, available---make electronic communication well suited for long distance communication.
    1.11  
    1.12 @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@
    1.13  
    1.14  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} analysis should always focus on a specific goal to reach with the product. In this case, the main goal is to make email future-safe.
    1.15  
    1.16 -The two dimension---a subject and the market---are regarded in relation to each other by the analysis. Here the analysis shall be driven by the market's dimension. Thus first opportunities of the market are identified and split into being stengths or weaknesses of email. Then the same is done for threats of the market.
    1.17 +The two dimension---a subject and the market---are regarded in relation to each other by the analysis. Here the analysis shall be driven by the market's dimension. Thus first opportunities of the market are identified and split into being strengths or weaknesses of email. Then the same is done for threats of the market.
    1.18  
    1.19  \subsubsection*{Threats}
    1.20  The market's main threat is \emph{spam}, also named \name{junk mail} or \name{unsolicited commercial email} (\NAME{UCE}). David~A.\ \person{Wheeler} is clear about it:
    1.21 @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@
    1.22  
    1.23  
    1.24  \subsubsection*{Provider independence}
    1.25 -Today's email structure is heavily dependent on email providers. This means, most people have email addresses from some provider. These can be providers that offer email accounts in addition to their regular services, for example online connections. \NAME{AOL} and \name{T\mbox{-}On\-line} for instance do so. Or specialized email providers that commonly offer freemail as well as enhanced mail services, one must pay for. Examples for email providers are \NAME{GMX}, \name{Yahoo}, and \name{Hotmail}.  %fixme: check for non-breakable dash
    1.26 +Today's email structure is heavily dependent on email providers. This means, most people have email addresses from some provider. These can be providers that offer email accounts in addition to their regular services, for example online connections. \NAME{AOL} and \name{T\mbox{-}On\-line} for instance do so. Or specialized email providers that commonly offer free mail as well as enhanced mail services, one must pay for. Examples for email providers are \NAME{GMX}, \name{Yahoo}, and \name{Hotmail}.  %fixme: check for non-breakable dash
    1.27  
    1.28  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 using the \name{mail user agent}. This means all mail sending and receiving work is done by the provider.
    1.29  
    1.30 @@ -205,7 +205,7 @@
    1.31  The concept works well with mobile phones where the provider knows about the client, but it does not to be a choice for computers since the provider needs to have some kind of login to push data to the user's computer. Push email, however, could swap over to computers when using a home server and no external provider. A possible scenario is a home server receiving mail from the Internet and pushing it to own workstations and smart phones. The configuration could be done by the user using some simple interface, like one configures his telephone system to have different telephone numbers ringing on specified phones.
    1.32  %FIXME: add reference to push email
    1.33  
    1.34 -Another problem is multiple clients sharing one mail box. This is only solvable by working directly in the server's mail box, which causes lots of traffic, or by storing at least information about read messages and thelike there.
    1.35 +Another problem is multiple clients sharing one mail box. This is only solvable by working directly in the server's mail box, which causes lots of traffic, or by storing at least information about read messages and the like there.
    1.36  
    1.37  
    1.38  \subsubsection*{New email concepts}
    1.39 @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@
    1.40  
    1.41  
    1.42  
    1.43 -\subsection{Importances in future}
    1.44 +\subsection{Important in future}
    1.45  \label{sec:what-will-be-important}
    1.46  
    1.47  Provider independence through running an own mail server at home asks for easy configuration of the \MTA. Providers have specialists to configure the systems, but ordinary people do not. Solutions are either having some home service system for computer configuration established with specialists coming to ones home to set up the systems; like it is already common for problems with the power and water supply systems. Or configuration needs to be easy and fool-prove, to be done by the owner himself. The latter solution depends on standardized parts that fit together seamlessly. The technology must not be a problem itself. Only settings custom to the users environment should be left open for him to set. This of course needs to be doable using a simple configuration interface like a web interface. Non-technical educated users should be able to configure the system.
    1.48 @@ -239,7 +239,7 @@
    1.49  
    1.50  When \MTA{}s become popular on home servers and maybe even on workstations and smart phones, then performance will be less important. Providers need \mta{}s that process large amounts of mail in short time. However, there is no need for home servers and workstations to handle that much mail; they need to process far less email messages per time unit. Thus performance will probably not be a main requirement for an \MTA\ in future, if they mainly run on private machines.
    1.51  
    1.52 -New mailing concepts and architectures like push email or \name{Internet Mail 2000} will, if they succeed, require \mta{}s to adopt the new technology. \MTA{}s that are not able to change are going to be sorted out by evolution. Thus it is important not to focus too much on one use case, but to stay flexible. Allman saw the flexibility of \sendmail\ one reason for its huge success (see section \ref{sec:sendmail}).
    1.53 +New mailing concepts and architectures like push email or \name{Internet Mail 2000} will, if they succeed, require \mta{}s to adopt the new technology. \MTA{}s that are not able to change are going to be sorted out by evolution. Thus it is important not to focus too much on one use case, but to stay flexible. \person{Allman} saw the flexibility of \sendmail\ one reason for its huge success (see section \ref{sec:sendmail}).
    1.54  
    1.55  Another important requirement for all kinds of software will be security. There is a constant trend coming from completely non-secured software, in the 70s and 80s, over growing security awareness, in the 90s, to security being a primary goal, now. This leads to the conclusion that software security will be even more important within the next years. As more clients get connected to the Internet and especially more computers are listening for incoming connections (like an \MTA\ in a home server), there are more possibilities to break into systems. Securing of software systems will be done with increasing effort in future.
    1.56  
    1.57 @@ -258,23 +258,23 @@
    1.58  \section{Conclusion}
    1.59  It seems as if electronic mail or a similar technology has good chances to survive the next decades.
    1.60  
    1.61 -It is assumed that it always will be important to send information messages. Those can be notes from people or notifications from systems. No other, current available, communication technology is as suitable for this kind of information transfer, as email, \NAME{SMS}, voice mail, and other asynchronous communication technologies. Synchronous communication, in contrast, is focused on dialog and normally interrupts people. The here needed kind of messages should not interrupt people, unless urgent, and they do not need two-way information exchange. Although synchronous communication could be used for tansfering messages, it is not the best choice. The best choice is an asynchronous technology. Thus at least one asynchronous communication technology is likely to survive.
    1.62 +It is assumed that it always will be important to send information messages. Those can be notes from people or notifications from systems. No other, current available, communication technology is as suitable for this kind of information transfer, as email, \NAME{SMS}, voice mail, and other asynchronous communication technologies. Synchronous communication, in contrast, is focused on dialog and normally interrupts people. The here needed kind of messages should not interrupt people, unless urgent, and they do not need two-way information exchange. Although synchronous communication could be used for transferring messages, it is not the best choice. The best choice is an asynchronous technology. Thus at least one asynchronous communication technology is likely to survive.
    1.63  
    1.64  Whether email will be the surviving one, is not possible to know by now. It currently seems likely that \name{unified messaging} will be the future for asynchronous communication. But Unified Messaging is more a concept than a technology itself. This concept will base upon one or many underlying transport technologies, like email, \NAME{SMS}, and the like. Its goal is to integrate the transport technologies in order to hide them from the user's view. Currently, email is the most used asynchronous electronic communication technology. It is matured, flexible, and extendable, as well as standardized. These advantages make email a good base transport technology for Unified Messaging. Anyhow, whether email will be the basis for Unified Messaging or not---\MTA{}s are a software needed for all asynchronous communication methods: programs that transfer messages from senders to destinations. Thus, their future is bright.
    1.65  
    1.66  %The trends in the communication market are consolidation, integration, and the merge of communication hardware. All this goes along with market's change to Unified Messaging.
    1.67  
    1.68 -Unified Communication, as next step after Unified Messaging, is about the integration of asynchonous an synchronous communication channels. It seems impossible to merge the two worlds on basis of email in an evolutionary way. As only a revolutionary change of the whole email concept would make that merge possible, it is best to ignore it. New designed technologies are usually superior to heavily patched and bent old technologies, anyway. A general merge of synchronous and asynchronous communication has good chances to be fatal for email.
    1.69 +Unified Communication, as next step after Unified Messaging, is about the integration of asynchronous an synchronous communication channels. It seems impossible to merge the two worlds on basis of email in an evolutionary way. As only a revolutionary change of the whole email concept would make that merge possible, it is best to ignore it. New designed technologies are usually superior to heavily patched and bent old technologies, anyway. A general merge of synchronous and asynchronous communication has good chances to be fatal for email.
    1.70  
    1.71  Until Unified Communication will become reality---if ever---electronic mail has a good position, also as basis for Unified Messaging.
    1.72  
    1.73  
    1.74  Not only the market influences email's future safety, but also must the email technology itself do its part in evolving to satisfy upcoming needs. Actions to take were discovered by using the \NAME{SWOT} analysis. These are: Prepare against spam. Search solutions for large data transfers and increasing growth and ramification of networks. Exploit standardization, modularity, and extendability.
    1.75  
    1.76 -Also needed is awareness for new trends like: Provider independence, new delivery concepts, and completely new emailing concepts, introducing new protocols. Easy configuration will also be important, security will be essentiel.
    1.77 +Also needed is awareness for new trends like: Provider independence, new delivery concepts, and completely new emailing concepts, introducing new protocols. Easy configuration will also be important, security will be essential.
    1.78  
    1.79  
    1.80 -What kinds of \MTA{}s will be needed in future? Probably ones running on home servers and workstations. This is what \masqmail\ was designed for. But the dial-up Internet connections, which are central to \masqmail's design, become rare. But mobile clients that move between differnt networks, do need relaying over different locations, dependent on external influences, too. This makes \masqmail\ still be a good \MTA\ for various situations. \masqmail\ is additionally small and it is much easier to configure for situations that are common to workstations and home servers, than other \MTA{}s. Thus \masqmail\ is generally a good program to have for several setups. These setups were quite common some years ago, but are rare now. The trends expected for the next years will lead to new situations where \masqmail\ will be a valuable \MTA.
    1.81 +What kinds of \MTA{}s will be needed in future? Probably ones running on home servers and workstations. This is what \masqmail\ was designed for. But the dial-up Internet connections, which are central to \masqmail's design, become rare. But mobile clients that move between different networks, do need relaying over different locations, dependent on external influences, too. This makes \masqmail\ still be a good \MTA\ for various situations. \masqmail\ is additionally small and it is much easier to configure for situations that are common to workstations and home servers, than other \MTA{}s. Thus \masqmail\ is generally a good program to have for several setups. These setups were quite common some years ago, but are rare now. The trends expected for the next years will lead to new situations where \masqmail\ will be a valuable \MTA.
    1.82  
    1.83  
    1.84  

     2.1 --- a/thesis/tex/3-MailTransferAgents.tex	Tue Jan 06 10:13:07 2009 +0100
     2.2 +++ b/thesis/tex/3-MailTransferAgents.tex	Tue Jan 06 18:04:18 2009 +0100
     2.3 @@ -88,11 +88,11 @@
     2.4  
     2.5  The three surveys base on different data. \person{Bernstein} took 1\,000\,000 randomly chosen \NAME{IP} addresses, containing 39\,206 valid hosts; 958 of them accepted \NAME{SMTP} connections. The \person{Simpson} and \person{Bekman} survey used only domains owned by companies; in total 400\,000 hosts. \name{MailRadar} scanned 2\,818\,895 servers, leading to 59\,209 accepted connections.
     2.6  
     2.7 -All surveys show \sendmail\ to be the most popular \MTA. \postfix, \qmail, and \exim\ are among the best seven in each. \exim\ has slightly smaller shares than the other two. The four together share more than half of the market according to \person{Bernstein} and the \name{MailRadar} statistics. \person{Simpson} and \person{Bekman} have their share to be somewhere between a third and the half. This uncertainty comes from the large amount of unidentifieable \MTA{}s.
     2.8 +All surveys show \sendmail\ to be the most popular \MTA. \postfix, \qmail, and \exim\ are among the best seven in each. \exim\ has slightly smaller shares than the other two. The four together share more than half of the market according to \person{Bernstein} and the \name{MailRadar} statistics. \person{Simpson} and \person{Bekman} have their share to be somewhere between a third and the half. This uncertainty comes from the large amount of unidentifiable \MTA{}s.
     2.9  
    2.10 -The 22 percent of \name{mail security layers} in the \name{O'Reilly} survey is remarkable. Mail security layers are software guards between the network and the \mta\ that filter unwanted mail before it reaches the \MTA. This increases security by filtering malicious content and by blocking attacks against the \MTA. This large share may be a result of only regarding business mail servers. The problem concerning the survey is the deguise of the \mta\ working behind the security layer. It seems wrong to assume equal shares for the \MTA{}s behind the guards as for the unguarded \MTA{}s, because mail security layers will be more often used to guard weak \MTA{}s, as strong ones do not need them so much. This needs to be kept in mind when using the \name{O'Reilly} survey.
    2.11 +The 22 percent of \name{mail security layers} in the \name{O'Reilly} survey is remarkable. Mail security layers are software guards between the network and the \mta\ that filter unwanted mail before it reaches the \MTA. This increases security by filtering malicious content and by blocking attacks against the \MTA. This large share may be a result of only regarding business mail servers. The problem concerning the survey is the disguise of the \mta\ working behind the security layer. It seems wrong to assume equal shares for the \MTA{}s behind the guards as for the unguarded \MTA{}s, because mail security layers will be more often used to guard weak \MTA{}s, as strong ones do not need them so much. This needs to be kept in mind when using the \name{O'Reilly} survey.
    2.12  
    2.13 -The date of the \name{Mailradar} statistics ist not mentioned with it; a mail to \name{Mailradar} asking for information was not replied, unfortunately. However, it seems quite sure that the statistics were published after 2001, caused by the \sendmail\ and \postfix\ shares. But to decide whether before or after the one from \name{O'Reilly} would be just guessing.
    2.14 +The date of the \name{Mailradar} statistics is not mentioned with it; a mail to \name{Mailradar} asking for information was not replied, unfortunately. However, it seems quite sure that the statistics were published after 2001, caused by the \sendmail\ and \postfix\ shares. But to decide whether before or after the one from \name{O'Reilly} would be just guessing.
    2.15  
    2.16  
    2.17  \subsection{The four major Free Software MTAs}
    2.18 @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@
    2.19  
    2.20  \qmail\ first introduced many innovative concepts in \mta\ design. The most obvious contrast to \sendmail\ and \exim\ is its modular design. But \qmail\ was not the first modular \MTA. \NAME{MMDF}, which predates even \sendmail, was modular too. Regardless of \NAME{MMDF}'s modular architecture, \qmail\ is generally seen as the first security-aware \MTA. %fixme:ref
    2.21  
    2.22 -The latest release of \qmail\ is versoin 1.03 from July 1998. In November 2007, afterwards, \qmail's source was put into the \name{public domain}. This makes it Free Software.
    2.23 +The latest release of \qmail\ is version 1.03 from July 1998. In November 2007, afterwards, \qmail's source was put into the \name{public domain}. This makes it Free Software.
    2.24  
    2.25  Because of \person{Bernstein}'s inactivity though changing requirements since 1998, ``[a] motley krewe of qmail contributors (see the README) has put together a netqmail-1.06 distribution of qmail. It is derived from Daniel Bernstein's qmail-1.03 plus bug fixes, a few feature enhancements, and some documentation.'' \citeweb{netqmail:homepage}.
    2.26  
    2.27 @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@
    2.28  
    2.29  \section{Comparison of MTAs}
    2.30  
    2.31 -This section does not try to provide an overall \MTA\ comparison, because this is already done by others. Remarkable comparisons are the one by Dan \person{Shearer} \cite{shearer06} and a discussion on the mailing list \name{plug@lists.q-linux.com} \cite{plug:mtas}. Tabulary overviews may be found at \citeweb{mailsoftware42}, \citeweb{wikipedia:comparison-of-mail-servers}, and \cite[section 1.9]{lifewithqmail}.
    2.32 +This section does not try to provide an overall \MTA\ comparison, because this is already done by others. Remarkable comparisons are the one by Dan \person{Shearer} \cite{shearer06} and a discussion on the mailing list \name{plug@lists.q-linux.com} \cite{plug:mtas}. Tabular overviews may be found at \citeweb{mailsoftware42}, \citeweb{wikipedia:comparison-of-mail-servers}, and \cite[section 1.9]{lifewithqmail}.
    2.33  
    2.34  Here provided is an overview on important properties of the four previously introduced \MTA{}s. The data comes from the above stated sources and is collected in table \ref{tab:mta-comparison}.
    2.35  
    2.36 @@ -201,9 +201,9 @@
    2.37  
    2.38  In chapter \ref{chap:market-analysis}, it was tried to figure out trends and future requirements for \MTA{}s. The four programs are compared on these (possible) future requirements now.
    2.39  
    2.40 -The first trend was provider independence, requiring easy configuration. \postfix\ seems to do best here. It used primary two configuration files (\path{master.cf} and \path{main.cf}) which are easy to manage. \sendmail\ appears to have a bad position. Its configuration file \path{sendmail.cf} is cryptic and very complex (it has legendary Turing-completeness) thus it needs simplification wrappers around it to provide easier configuration. There exist the \name{m4} macros to generate \path{sendmail.cf}, but adjusting the generated result by hand appears to be nessesary for non-trivial configurations. \qmail's configuration files are simple, but the whole system is complex to set up; it requires various system users and is hardly usable without applying several patches to add basic functionality. \name{netqmail} is the community effort to help here. \exim\ has only one single configuration file (\path{exim.conf}), but it suffers most from its flexibility---like \sendmail. Flexibility and easy configuration are almost always contrary goals.
    2.41 +The first trend was provider independence, requiring easy configuration. \postfix\ seems to do best here. It used primary two configuration files (\path{master.cf} and \path{main.cf}) which are easy to manage. \sendmail\ appears to have a bad position. Its configuration file \path{sendmail.cf} is cryptic and very complex (it has legendary Turing-completeness) thus it needs simplification wrappers around it to provide easier configuration. There exist the \name{m4} macros to generate \path{sendmail.cf}, but adjusting the generated result by hand appears to be necessary for non-trivial configurations. \qmail's configuration files are simple, but the whole system is complex to set up; it requires various system users and is hardly usable without applying several patches to add basic functionality. \name{netqmail} is the community effort to help here. \exim\ has only one single configuration file (\path{exim.conf}), but it suffers most from its flexibility---like \sendmail. Flexibility and easy configuration are almost always contrary goals.
    2.42  
    2.43 -As second trend, the decreasing nessesarity for high performance was identified. This goes along with the move of \MTA{}s from service providers to home servers. \postfix\ focuses much on performance, this might not be an important point then. Of course there still will be the need for high performance \MTA{}s, but a growing share of the market will not require high performance. Performance is related to simplicity, which effects security. Increasing performance does in most times decrease the other two. Simple \mta{}s not aiming for highest performance are what is needed in future. The simple of \qmail, still being fast, seems to be a good example.
    2.44 +As second trend, the decreasing necessity for high performance was identified. This goes along with the move of \MTA{}s from service providers to home servers. \postfix\ focuses much on performance, this might not be an important point then. Of course there still will be the need for high performance \MTA{}s, but a growing share of the market will not require high performance. Performance is related to simplicity, which effects security. Increasing performance does in most times decrease the other two. Simple \mta{}s not aiming for highest performance are what is needed in future. The simple of \qmail, still being fast, seems to be a good example.
    2.45  
    2.46  The third trend---even more security awareness---is addressed by each of the four programs. It seems as if all widely used \mta{}s provide good security nowadays. Even \sendmail\ can be considered secure today. %fixme:ref
    2.47  But the modular architecture, used by \qmail\ and \postfix, is generally seen to be conceptually more secure, however. %fixme: ref

     3.1 --- a/thesis/tex/4-MasqmailsFuture.tex	Tue Jan 06 10:13:07 2009 +0100
     3.2 +++ b/thesis/tex/4-MasqmailsFuture.tex	Tue Jan 06 18:04:18 2009 +0100
     3.3 @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
     3.4  
     3.5  The only mandatory dependency is \name{glib}---a cross-platform software utility library, originated in the \NAME{GTK+} project. It provides safe replacements for many standard library functions, especially for the string functions. It also offers handy data containers, easy-to-use implementations of data structures, and much more.
     3.6  
     3.7 -With \masqmail\ comes the small tool \path{mservdetect}; it helps setting up a configuration that uses the \name{mserver} system to detect the online state. Two other binaries get compiled for testing purposes: \path{readtest} and \path{smtpsend}. All three programms use \masqmail\ source code; they only add a file with a \verb+main()+ function each.
     3.8 +With \masqmail\ comes the small tool \path{mservdetect}; it helps setting up a configuration that uses the \name{mserver} system to detect the online state. Two other binaries get compiled for testing purposes: \path{readtest} and \path{smtpsend}. All three programs use \masqmail\ source code; they only add a file with a \verb+main()+ function each.
     3.9  
    3.10  \masqmail\ lacks an interface to plug in modules with additional functionality. There exists no add-on or module system. The code is only separated by function to the various source files. Some functional parts can be included or excluded by defining symbols at compile time. Adding maildir support, means giving the option \verb+--enable-maildir+ to the \path{configure} call. This preserves the concerning code to get removed by the preprocessor. Unfortunately the \verb+#ifdef+s are scattered through all the source, leading to code that is hard to read.
    3.11  %fixme: refer to ifdef-considered-harmful ?
    3.12 @@ -26,14 +26,14 @@
    3.13  \subsubsection*{Features}
    3.14  \label{sec:masqmail-features}
    3.15  
    3.16 -\masqmail\ accepts mail on the command line and via \SMTP. Mail queueing and alias expansion is supported. \masqmail\ is able to deliver mail to local mailboxes (in \name{mbox} or \name{maildir} format) or pass it to a \name{mail delivery agent} (like \name{procmail}). Mail for remote destinations is sent using \SMTP\ or can be piped to commands, that are gatesways to \NAME{UUCP} or telefax for example.
    3.17 +\masqmail\ accepts mail on the command line and via \SMTP. Mail queuing and alias expansion is supported. \masqmail\ is able to deliver mail to local mailboxes (in \name{mbox} or \name{maildir} format) or pass it to a \name{mail delivery agent} (like \name{procmail}). Mail for remote destinations is sent using \SMTP\ or can be piped to commands, that are gateways to \NAME{UUCP} or telefax for example.
    3.18  
    3.19  Outgoing \SMTP\ connections feature \SMTP-\NAME{AUTH} and \SMTP-after-\NAME{POP} authentication, but incoming connections do not. Using wrappers for outgoing connections is supported. This allows encrypted communication through a wrapper application like \name{openssl}.
    3.20  %todo: what about SSL/TLS encryption?
    3.21  
    3.22 -\masqmail\ focuses on non-permanent online connections, thus a concept of online routes is used. One may configure any number of routes to send mail. Each route can have criterias, like matching \texttt{From:} or \texttt{To:} headers, to determine if some message is allowed to be sent over it. Mail to destinations outside the local network gets queued until an online connections is available.
    3.23 +\masqmail\ focuses on non-permanent online connections, thus a concept of online routes is used. One may configure any number of routes to send mail. Each route can have criteria, like matching \texttt{From:} or \texttt{To:} headers, to determine if some message is allowed to be sent over it. Mail to destinations outside the local network gets queued until an online connections is available.
    3.24  
    3.25 -The \masqmail\ executable can be called under various names for sendmail-compatibility reasons. This is organized by symbolic links with different names pointing to the \masqmail\ executable. The \sendmail\ names are \path{/usr/lib/sendmail} and \path{/usr/sbin/sendmail} because many programs expect the \mta\ to be located there. Further more \sendmail\ supports calling it with a different name instead of supplying command line arguments. The best known of this shortcuts is \path{mailq}, which is equivilent to calling it with the argument \verb+-bq+. \masqmail\ recognizes the names \path{mailq}, \path{smtpd}, \path{mailrm}, \path{runq}, \path{rmail}, and \path{in.smtpd}. The first two are inspired by \sendmail. Not implemented is the name \path{newaliases} because \masqmail\ does not generate binary representations of the alias file.\footnote{A shell script named \path{newaliases}, that invokes \texttt{masqmail -bi}, can provide the command to satisfy other software needing it.} \path{hoststat} and \path{purgestat} are missing for complete sendmail-compatibility.
    3.26 +The \masqmail\ executable can be called under various names for sendmail-compatibility reasons. This is organized by symbolic links with different names pointing to the \masqmail\ executable. The \sendmail\ names are \path{/usr/lib/sendmail} and \path{/usr/sbin/sendmail} because many programs expect the \mta\ to be located there. Further more \sendmail\ supports calling it with a different name instead of supplying command line arguments. The best known of this shortcuts is \path{mailq}, which is equivalent to calling it with the argument \verb+-bq+. \masqmail\ recognizes the names \path{mailq}, \path{smtpd}, \path{mailrm}, \path{runq}, \path{rmail}, and \path{in.smtpd}. The first two are inspired by \sendmail. Not implemented is the name \path{newaliases} because \masqmail\ does not generate binary representations of the alias file.\footnote{A shell script named \path{newaliases}, that invokes \texttt{masqmail -bi}, can provide the command to satisfy other software needing it.} \path{hoststat} and \path{purgestat} are missing for complete sendmail-compatibility.
    3.27  %masqmail: mailq, mailrm, runq, rmail, smtpd/in.smtpd
    3.28  %sendmail: hoststat, mailq, newaliases, purgestat, smtpd
    3.29  
    3.30 @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@
    3.31  
    3.32  \subsection{Functional requirements}
    3.33  
    3.34 -The basic job of a \mta\ is to tranport mail from senders to recipients. This is the definition of such kind of software, and this is how \MTA{}s are generally seen \cite[page 19]{dent04} \cite[pages 3-5]{hafiz05}.
    3.35 +The basic job of a \mta\ is to transport mail from senders to recipients. This is the definition of such kind of software, and this is how \MTA{}s are generally seen \cite[page 19]{dent04} \cite[pages 3-5]{hafiz05}.
    3.36  
    3.37  An \MTA\ therefore needs at least a mail receiving facility and a mail sending facility.
    3.38  
    3.39 @@ -72,15 +72,15 @@
    3.40  Outgoing channels are similar for \qmail, \postfix, and \name{sendmail X}: All of them have a module to send mail using \SMTP, and one for writing into a local mailbox.
    3.41  
    3.42  % is the def of MTA: transfer between machines, or transfer between users?
    3.43 -Local mail delivery is a job that requires root priveledge to be able to switch to any user in order to write to his mailbox. As mail delivery to local users, is \emph{not} included in the basic job of an \MTA{}, why should it care about it? In order to reduce root privelege, to keep the system simple, and to have programs that do one job well, the local delivery job should be handed over to a specialist: a \name{mail delivery agent}. \NAME{MDA}s know about the various mailbox formats and are aware of the problems of concurrent write access and thelike. Hence passing the message, and the responsiblity for it, over to an \NAME{MDA}, like \name{procmail} or \name{maildrop}, seems to be best.
    3.44 +Local mail delivery is a job that requires root privilege to be able to switch to any user in order to write to his mailbox. As mail delivery to local users, is \emph{not} included in the basic job of an \MTA{}, why should it care about it? In order to reduce root privilege, to keep the system simple, and to have programs that do one job well, the local delivery job should be handed over to a specialist: a \name{mail delivery agent}. \NAME{MDA}s know about the various mailbox formats and are aware of the problems of concurrent write access and the like. Hence passing the message, and the responsibility for it, over to an \NAME{MDA}, like \name{procmail} or \name{maildrop}, seems to be best.
    3.45  
    3.46 -This means an outgoing connection that pipes mail into local commands is required. Other outgoing channels, one for each supportet protocol, may be designed like it was done in other \MTA{}s.
    3.47 +This means an outgoing connection that pipes mail into local commands is required. Other outgoing channels, one for each supported protocol, may be designed like it was done in other \MTA{}s.
    3.48  
    3.49  
    3.50  
    3.51  \subsubsection*{Mail queue}
    3.52  
    3.53 -Additionally to the mail receiving and sending facilities, mail queueing is a basic feature. A mail queue removes the need to deliver intantly as a message is received. It provides fail-safe storage of mails until they are delivered. Mail queues are probably used in all \mta{}s, excluding the simple forwarders. The mail queue is essential for \masqmail, as \masqmail\ is used for non-permanent online connections. This means, mail must be queued until a online connection is available to send the message. This may be after a reboot.
    3.54 +Additionally to the mail receiving and sending facilities, mail queuing is a basic feature. A mail queue removes the need to deliver instantly as a message is received. It provides fail-safe storage of mails until they are delivered. Mail queues are probably used in all \mta{}s, excluding the simple forwarders. The mail queue is essential for \masqmail, as \masqmail\ is used for non-permanent online connections. This means, mail must be queued until a online connection is available to send the message. This may be after a reboot.
    3.55  
    3.56  The mail queue and the module(s) to manage it are the central part of the whole system. This demands especially for robustness and reliability, as a failure here can lead to loosing mail. An \MTA\ takes over responsibility for mail in accepting it, hence loosing mail messages is absolutely to avoid. This covers any kind of crash situation too. The worst thing acceptable to happen is an already sent mail to be sent again.
    3.57  
    3.58 @@ -91,14 +91,14 @@
    3.59  
    3.60  Mail coming into the system often lacks important header lines. At least the required ones must be added by the \MTA. One example is the \texttt{Date:} header, another is the, not required but recommended, \texttt{Message-ID:} header. Apart from adding missing headers, rewriting headers is important too. Changing the locally known domain part of email addresses to globally known ones is an example. \masqmail\ needs to be able to rewrite the domain part dependent on the route used to send the message, to prevent messages to get classified as spam.
    3.61  
    3.62 -Generating the envelope is a related job. The envelope specifies the actual recipient of the mail, no matter what the \texttt{To:}, \texttt{Cc:}, and \texttt{Bcc:} headers contain. Multiple reciptients lead to multiple different envelopes, containing all the same mail message.
    3.63 +Generating the envelope is a related job. The envelope specifies the actual recipient of the mail, no matter what the \texttt{To:}, \texttt{Cc:}, and \texttt{Bcc:} headers contain. Multiple recipients lead to multiple different envelopes, containing all the same mail message.
    3.64  
    3.65  
    3.66  
    3.67  
    3.68  \subsubsection*{Aliasing}
    3.69  
    3.70 -Email addresses can have aliases, thus they need to be expanded. Aliases can be of different kind: another local user, a remote user, a list containing local and remote users, or a command. Most important are the aliases in the \path{aliases} file, usually located at \path{/etc/aliases}. Addresses expanding to lists of users lead to more envelopes. Aliases changing the reciptient's domain part may require a different route to be used.
    3.71 +Email addresses can have aliases, thus they need to be expanded. Aliases can be of different kind: another local user, a remote user, a list containing local and remote users, or a command. Most important are the aliases in the \path{aliases} file, usually located at \path{/etc/aliases}. Addresses expanding to lists of users lead to more envelopes. Aliases changing the recipient's domain part may require a different route to be used.
    3.72  
    3.73  
    3.74  
    3.75 @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@
    3.76  
    3.77  One thing to avoid is being an \name{open relay}. Open relays allow to relay mail from everywhere to everywhere. This is a source of spam. The solution is restricting relay\footnote{Relaying is passing mail, that is not from and not for the own system, through it.} access.
    3.78  
    3.79 -Several ways to restrict access are available. The most simple one is restrictiction by the \NAME{IP} address. No extra complexity is added this way, but static \NAME{IP} addresses are required.
    3.80 +Several ways to restrict access are available. The most simple one is restriction by the \NAME{IP} address. No extra complexity is added this way, but static \NAME{IP} addresses are required.
    3.81  
    3.82  If static access restriction is not possible, some kind of authentication mechanism is required. Three common kinds exist:
    3.83  \begin{itemize}
    3.84 @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@
    3.85  
    3.86  Spam is a major threat nowadays, but it is a war that is hard to win. The goal is to provide state-of-the-art spam protection, but not more (see section \ref{sec:swot-analysis}).
    3.87  
    3.88 -As spam is not just a nuisance for end users, but also for the infrastructure---the \mta{}s---by increasing the amount of mail messages, \MTA{}s need to protect themself.
    3.89 +As spam is not just a nuisance for end users, but also for the infrastructure---the \mta{}s---by increasing the amount of mail messages, \MTA{}s need to protect them self.
    3.90  
    3.91  Filtering spam can be done in two ways: Refusing spam during the \SMTP\ dialog or checking for spam after the mail was accepted and queued. Both have advantages and disadvantages, so modern \MTA{}s use them in combination. Spam is identified by the results of a set of checks. Static rules, querying databases (\NAME{DNS} blacklists), requesting special client behavior (\name{greylisting}, \name{hashcash}), or statistical analysis (\name{bayesian filters}) are checks that may be used. Running more checks leads to better results, but takes more system resources and more time.
    3.92  
    3.93 @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@
    3.94  
    3.95  \subsubsection*{Virus checking}
    3.96  
    3.97 -Related to spam is malicous content (short: \name{malware}) like viruses, worms, trojan horses. They, in contrast to spam, do not affect the \MTA\ itself, as they are in the mail's body. \MTA{}s searching for malware is equal to real world's post offices opening letters to check if they contain something that could harm the recipient. This is not a mail transport job. But the \MTA\ responsible for the recipient seems to be at a good position to do this work, so it is often done there.
    3.98 +Related to spam is malicious content (short: \name{malware}) like viruses, worms, trojan horses. They, in contrast to spam, do not affect the \MTA\ itself, as they are in the mail's body. \MTA{}s searching for malware is equal to real world's post offices opening letters to check if they contain something that could harm the recipient. This is not a mail transport job. But the \MTA\ responsible for the recipient seems to be at a good position to do this work, so it is often done there.
    3.99  
   3.100  In any way should malware checking be performed by external programs that may be invoked by the \mta. But using mail deliver agents, like \name{procmail}, are better suited locations to invoke content scanners.
   3.101  
   3.102 @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@
   3.103  
   3.104  Mail archiving and auditability become more important as email establishes as technology for serious business communication. The ability to archive verbatim copies of every mail coming into and every mail going out of the system, with relation between them, appears to be a goal to achieve.
   3.105  
   3.106 -\postfix\ for example has a \texttt{always\_bcc} feature, to send a copy of every outgoing mail to a definable reciptient. At least this funtionality should be given, although a more complete approach is preferable.
   3.107 +\postfix\ for example has a \texttt{always\_bcc} feature, to send a copy of every outgoing mail to a definable recipient. At least this functionality should be given, although a more complete approach is preferable.
   3.108  
   3.109  
   3.110  
   3.111 @@ -169,12 +169,12 @@
   3.112  
   3.113  \subsection{Non-functional requirements}
   3.114  
   3.115 -Here follows a list of non-functional requirements for \masqmail. These requirements specify the quality properties of software. The list is based on \person{Hafiz} \cite[page~2]{hafiz05}, with insperation from \person{Spinellis} \cite[page~6]{spinellis06} and \person{Kan} \cite{kan03}.
   3.116 +Here follows a list of non-functional requirements for \masqmail. These requirements specify the quality properties of software. The list is based on \person{Hafiz} \cite[page~2]{hafiz05}, with inspiration from \person{Spinellis} \cite[page~6]{spinellis06} and \person{Kan} \cite{kan03}.
   3.117  %fixme: refer to ch01 and ch02
   3.118  
   3.119  
   3.120  \subsubsection*{Security}
   3.121 -\MTA{}s are critical points for computer security, as they are accessable from external networks. They must be secured with high effort. Properties like the need for high priviledge level, from outside influencable work load, work on unsafe data, and demand for reliability, increase the need for security. \masqmail\ needs to be secure enough for its target field of operation.
   3.122 +\MTA{}s are critical points for computer security, as they are accessible from external networks. They must be secured with high effort. Properties like the need for high privilege level, from outside influenced work load, work on unsafe data, and demand for reliability, increase the need for security. \masqmail\ needs to be secure enough for its target field of operation.
   3.123  
   3.124  
   3.125  \subsubsection*{Reliability}
   3.126 @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@
   3.127  
   3.128  
   3.129  \subsubsection*{Testability}
   3.130 -Good testability make maintainance easier too, because functionality is directly verifiable when changes are done, thus removing uncertainty. Modularized software makes testing easier, because parts can be testet without external influences. \person{Spinellis} sees testability as a subquality of maintainability.
   3.131 +Good testability make maintenance easier too, because functionality is directly verifiable when changes are done, thus removing uncertainty. Modularized software makes testing easier, because parts can be tested without external influences. \person{Spinellis} sees testability as a sub-quality of maintainability.
   3.132  
   3.133  
   3.134  \subsubsection*{Performance}
   3.135 @@ -202,11 +202,11 @@
   3.136  
   3.137  
   3.138  \subsubsection*{Availability}
   3.139 -Availability is important for server programs. They must stay operational by blocking \name{denial of service} attacks and thelike.
   3.140 +Availability is important for server programs. They must stay operational by blocking \name{denial of service} attacks and the like.
   3.141  
   3.142  
   3.143  \subsubsection*{Portability}
   3.144 -Source code that compiles and runs on various operationg systems is called portable. Portability can be achieved by using standard features of the programming language and common libraries. Basic rules to achieve portable code are defined by \person{Kerighan} and \person{Pike} \cite{kernighan99}. Portable code lets software spread faster.
   3.145 +Source code that compiles and runs on various operation systems is called portable. Portability can be achieved by using standard features of the programming language and common libraries. Basic rules to achieve portable code are defined by \person{Kernighan} and \person{Pike} \cite{kernighan99}. Portable code lets software spread faster.
   3.146  
   3.147  
   3.148  \subsubsection*{Usability}
   3.149 @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@
   3.150  
   3.151  \masqmail\ does not provide special support for spam filtering and content checking. But it is possible to use external filter applications by running two independent instances of \masqmail, connected by the filter application. The receiving \MTA\ instance accepts mail and pushes it into the filter application. The filter application receives mail, processes it, possible modifies it, and pushes it to a second \MTA\ instance. The second \MTA\ is responsible for further delivery of the mail.
   3.152  %Appendix \ref{app:FIXME} shows configuration files to create such a setup.
   3.153 -This is a concept that works in general. However, real spam \emph{prevention}---to not even accept spam---or good filter interfaces are not available. But they are nessesary for using \masqmail\ in an unsafe environment.
   3.154 +This is a concept that works in general. However, real spam \emph{prevention}---to not even accept spam---or good filter interfaces are not available. But they are necessary for using \masqmail\ in an unsafe environment.
   3.155  
   3.156  There is currently no way of archiving every message going through \masqmail.
   3.157  
   3.158 @@ -256,25 +256,25 @@
   3.159  
   3.160  \masqmail's extendability is very poor. This is a general problem of monolithic software, but can thus be provided with high effort. \exim\ is an example for good extendability in a monolithic program.
   3.161  
   3.162 -The maintainability of \masqmail\ appears to be equivilent to other software of similar kind. Missing modularity and therefore more complexity makes the maintainer's work harder. In summary is \masqmail's maintainability bearable, like in average Free Software projects. The testability suffers from missing modularity. Testing program parts is hard to do. Anyhow, it is done by compiling parts of the source to special test programs.
   3.163 +The maintainability of \masqmail\ appears to be equivalent to other software of similar kind. Missing modularity and therefore more complexity makes the maintainer's work harder. In summary is \masqmail's maintainability bearable, like in average Free Software projects. The testability suffers from missing modularity. Testing program parts is hard to do. Anyhow, it is done by compiling parts of the source to special test programs.
   3.164  
   3.165 -The performance---effenciency---of \masqmail\ is good enough for its target field of operation, where this is a minor goal. This applies equal to availability. Hence no further work needs to be done her.
   3.166 +The performance---efficiency---of \masqmail\ is good enough for its target field of operation, where this is a minor goal. This applies equal to availability. Hence no further work needs to be done her.
   3.167  
   3.168 -The code's protability is good with view on \unix-like operation systems. At least \name{Debian}, \name{Redhat}, \NAME{SUSE}, \name{slackware}, \name{Free}\NAME{BSD}, \name{Open}\NAME{BSD}, and \name{Net}\NAME{BSD} are reported to be able to compile and run \masqmail\ \citeweb{masqmail:homepage2}. Special requirements for the underlying file system are not known. Therefore, the portability is already good.
   3.169 +The code's portability is good with view on \unix-like operation systems. At least \name{Debian}, \name{Red Hat}, \NAME{SUSE}, \name{Slackware}, \name{Free}\NAME{BSD}, \name{Open}\NAME{BSD}, and \name{Net}\NAME{BSD} are reported to be able to compile and run \masqmail\ \citeweb{masqmail:homepage2}. Special requirements for the underlying file system are not known. Therefore, the portability is already good.
   3.170  
   3.171 -The usability, from the administator's point of view, is very good. \masqmail\ was developed to suite a specific, limited job---its configuration does perfect match. The user's view does not reach to the \MTA, as it is hidden behind the \name{mail user agent}.
   3.172 +The usability, from the administrator's point of view, is very good. \masqmail\ was developed to suite a specific, limited job---its configuration does perfect match. The user's view does not reach to the \MTA, as it is hidden behind the \name{mail user agent}.
   3.173  
   3.174  
   3.175  
   3.176  \subsubsection*{Missing parts}
   3.177  
   3.178 -Support for other protocols than \SMTP\ seems not to be nessesary at the moment. Adding such support will need lots of work in many parts of \masqmail. Hence delaying this work until the support becomes mandatory, appears to be the best strategy. This way work can be saved if some protocols never become popular.
   3.179 +Support for other protocols than \SMTP\ seems not to be necessary at the moment. Adding such support will need lots of work in many parts of \masqmail. Hence delaying this work until the support becomes mandatory, appears to be the best strategy. This way work can be saved if some protocols never become popular.
   3.180  
   3.181 -Authentication of incoming \SMTP\ connections is definately needed and should be added soon. The same applies to encryption of incomming connections. These two features are essential for restricting relaying and for providing privacy.
   3.182 +Authentication of incoming \SMTP\ connections is definitely needed and should be added soon. The same applies to encryption of incoming connections. These two features are essential for restricting relaying and for providing privacy.
   3.183  
   3.184  As authentication can be a guard against spam, filter facilities have lower priority. But basic spam filtering and interfaces for external tools should be implemented in future. Content checking should be left over to the \NAME{MDA}, to deal with it during local delivery.
   3.185  
   3.186 -Archiving again is prefered to be implemented soon. It does not require much work, but enables all kinds of statistical analysis.
   3.187 +Archiving again is preferred to be implemented soon. It does not require much work, but enables all kinds of statistical analysis.
   3.188  
   3.189  Non-functional requirements need improvement too.
   3.190  
   3.191 @@ -284,9 +284,9 @@
   3.192  
   3.193  Extendability, maintainability, and testability do all suffer from the monolithic architecture and are nearly impossible to improve without changing the programs structure. These properties can hardly be retrofitted into software. Extendability might become important in the future. The other two ease all further work on the software, and also improve security and reliability.
   3.194  
   3.195 -Performance is a property that is nice to have. But as performance improvements are in contrast to many other quality poperties (reliability, maintainability, usability, capability \cite[page~5]{kan03}), jeopardizing these to gain some more performance should not be done. \person{Kernighan} and \person{Pike} state clear: ``[T]he first principle of optimization is \emph{don't}.''\cite[page~165]{kernighan99}. \masqmail\ is not a program to be used on large servers, but on small devices. Thus important for \masqmail\ could be energy and heat saving, maybe also system resources, but not performance. Anyway, simplicity and clearness are of higher value.
   3.196 +Performance is a property that is nice to have. But as performance improvements are in contrast to many other quality properties (reliability, maintainability, usability, capability \cite[page~5]{kan03}), jeopardizing these to gain some more performance should not be done. \person{Kernighan} and \person{Pike} state clear: ``[T]he first principle of optimization is \emph{don't}.''\cite[page~165]{kernighan99}. \masqmail\ is not a program to be used on large servers, but on small devices. Thus important for \masqmail\ could be energy and heat saving, maybe also system resources, but not performance. Anyway, simplicity and clearness are of higher value.
   3.197  
   3.198 -Portability amoung the various flavors of \unix\ systems is a goal, because these systems are the ones \MTA{}s run on usually. Portability problems with non-\unix\ platforms are primary expected to come from file systems lacking required features. But no special care should be taken here.
   3.199 +Portability among the various flavors of \unix\ systems is a goal, because these systems are the ones \MTA{}s run on usually. Portability problems with non-\unix\ platforms are primary expected to come from file systems lacking required features. But no special care should be taken here.
   3.200  
   3.201  Configuration could be eased more, by providing configuration generators to be able to use \masqmail\ right ``out of the box'' after running one of several configuration scripts for common setups. This would improve \masqmail's usability for not technical educated people.
   3.202  
   3.203 @@ -296,9 +296,9 @@
   3.204  
   3.205  Adding authentication and encryption support, for example, is limited to a narrow region in the code. Such features are addable to the current code base without much problem. In contrast does adding support for new protocols or mail processing interfaces to external programs require a lot of effort. Changes in many parts of the source code are required. It is a bad idea to implement large retro-fitted features into software that is critical about security and reliability, like \MTA{}s. Worse if these features need changes in the program's structure, like adding mail scanning interfaces would do.
   3.206  
   3.207 -If such large features are needed, it is best to redesign the program's structure and rebuild it. A program's structure is primary its architecture. Which is the most influencing design decision, and has the greatest impact on the program's future capabilities. The architecture defines what the program can do, and how it can be used. If the architecture does not fit to the requirements, develpement will reach a dead end \dots\ further work then will make everything worse. The only good solution is to change the architecture, which, sadley but most likely, means a redesign from scratch.
   3.208 +If such large features are needed, it is best to redesign the program's structure and rebuild it. A program's structure is primary its architecture. Which is the most influencing design decision, and has the greatest impact on the program's future capabilities. The architecture defines what the program can do, and how it can be used. If the architecture does not fit to the requirements, development will reach a dead end \dots\ further work then will make everything worse. The only good solution is to change the architecture, which, sadly but most likely, means a redesign from scratch.
   3.209  
   3.210 -Quality properties, like security and reliability, as well as extendability and maintainablity, can hardly be added afterwards---if at all. Only structural changes will improve them. Hence, if security, reliability, extendability (to add support for future mail transfer protocols), or maintainability shall be improved, a redesign of \masqmail\ is the only sane way to go.
   3.211 +Quality properties, like security and reliability, as well as extendability and maintainability, can hardly be added afterwards---if at all. Only structural changes will improve them. Hence, if security, reliability, extendability (to add support for future mail transfer protocols), or maintainability shall be improved, a redesign of \masqmail\ is the only sane way to go.
   3.212  
   3.213  %\person{Hafiz} adds: ``The major idea is that security cannot be retrofitted into an architecture.''\cite[page 64]{hafiz05}
   3.214  
   3.215 @@ -307,7 +307,7 @@
   3.216  
   3.217  \section{Discussion on MTA architecture}
   3.218  
   3.219 -\masqmail's current artitecture is monolitic like \sendmail's and \exim's. But more than the other two, is it one block of interweaved code. \exim\ has a highly structured code with many internal interfaces, a good example is the one for authentication ``modules''. %fixme: add ref
   3.220 +\masqmail's current architecture is monolithic like \sendmail's and \exim's. But more than the other two, is it one block of interweaved code. \exim\ has a highly structured code with many internal interfaces, a good example is the one for authentication ``modules''. %fixme: add ref
   3.221  \sendmail\ provides now, with its \name{milter} interface, standardized connection channels to external modules.
   3.222  \masqmail\ has none of them; it is what \sendmail\ was in the beginning: a single large block.
   3.223  
   3.224 @@ -323,9 +323,9 @@
   3.225  	\label{fig:masqmail-arch}
   3.226  \end{figure}
   3.227  
   3.228 -\sendmail\ improved its old architecture by adding the milter interface, to include further functionality by invocing external programs. \exim\ was designed, and is carefully maintained, with a modular-like code structure in mind. \qmail\ started from scratch with a ``security-first'' approach, \postfix\ improved on it, and \name{sendmail X}/\name{MeTA1} tries to adopt the best of \qmail\ and \postfix\ to completely replace the old \sendmail\ architecture. \person{Hafiz} describes this evolution of \mta\ architecture very well \cite{hafiz05}.
   3.229 +\sendmail\ improved its old architecture by adding the milter interface, to include further functionality by invoking external programs. \exim\ was designed, and is carefully maintained, with a modular-like code structure in mind. \qmail\ started from scratch with a ``security-first'' approach, \postfix\ improved on it, and \name{sendmail X}/\name{MeTA1} tries to adopt the best of \qmail\ and \postfix\ to completely replace the old \sendmail\ architecture. \person{Hafiz} describes this evolution of \mta\ architecture very well \cite{hafiz05}.
   3.230  
   3.231 -Every one of these programs is more modular, or became more modular over time, than \masqmail\ is. Modern requirements like spam protection and future requirements like---probably---the use of new mail transport protocols demand for modular designs in order to keep the software simple. Simplicity is a key property for security. ``[T]he essence of security engenieering is to build systems that are as simple as possible.''\cite[page 45]{graff03}
   3.232 +Every one of these programs is more modular, or became more modular over time, than \masqmail\ is. Modern requirements like spam protection and future requirements like---probably---the use of new mail transport protocols demand for modular designs in order to keep the software simple. Simplicity is a key property for security. ``[T]he essence of security engineering is to build systems that are as simple as possible.''\cite[page 45]{graff03}
   3.233  
   3.234  \person{Hafiz} agrees: ``The goal of making software secure can be better achieved by making the design simple and easier to understand and verify.'' \cite[page 64]{hafiz05}. He identifies the security of \qmail\ to come from it's \name{compartmentalization}, which goes hand in hand with modularity:
   3.235  \begin{quote}
   3.236 @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@
   3.237  
   3.238  Security comes from good design, as \person{Graff} and \person{van Wyk} explain:
   3.239  \begin{quote}
   3.240 -Good design is the sword and shield of the security-conscious developer. Sound design defends your application from subversion or misuse, protecting your network and the information on it from internal and external attacks alike. It also provides a safe foundation for future extensions and maintainance of the software.
   3.241 +Good design is the sword and shield of the security-conscious developer. Sound design defends your application from subversion or misuse, protecting your network and the information on it from internal and external attacks alike. It also provides a safe foundation for future extensions and maintenance of the software.
   3.242  %
   3.243  %Bad design makes life easier for attackers and harder for the good guys, especially if it contributes to a false sends of security while obscuring pertinent failings.
   3.244  \hfill\cite[page 55]{graff03}
   3.245 @@ -347,7 +347,7 @@
   3.246  
   3.247  All this leads to the wish of a rewrite of \masqmail, using a modern, modular architecture, \emph{if} further features need to be added---features that require changes in \masqmail's structure. But a rewrite is also mandatory, if \masqmail\ should become a modern \MTA, with good quality properties.
   3.248  
   3.249 -But redesigning and rewriting a software from scratch is hard. It takes time to design a new architecture, which then must prove it is secure and reliable. As well is much time and work needed to implement the design, test it, fix bugs, and so on. If flaws in the design appear during prototype implementation, it is nessesary to start again. Thus the gain of a new design must overweight the effort needed.
   3.250 +But redesigning and rewriting a software from scratch is hard. It takes time to design a new architecture, which then must prove it is secure and reliable. As well is much time and work needed to implement the design, test it, fix bugs, and so on. If flaws in the design appear during prototype implementation, it is necessary to start again. Thus the gain of a new design must overweight the effort needed.
   3.251  
   3.252  \person{Wheeler}'s program \name{sloccount} calculates following estimations for \masqmail's code base as of version 0.2.21 (excluding library code):
   3.253  {\small
   3.254 @@ -365,7 +365,7 @@
   3.255  }
   3.256  The development cost is not relevant for a \freesw\ project with volunteer developers, but the development time is. About 24 man-months are estimated. The current code base was written almost completely by Oliver \person{Kurth} within four years, in his spare time. This means he needed around twice as much time. Of course, he programmed as volunteer developer, not as employee with eight work-hours per day.
   3.257  
   3.258 -Given the asumptions that (1) an equal amount of code needs to be produced for a new \masqmail, (2) a third of existing code can be reused plus concepts and knowledge, and (3) development speed is like \person{Kurth}'s. Then it would take between two and three years to have a redesigned new \masqmail\ with the same features that \masqmail\ now has. Less time would be needed if a simpler architecture allows faster develpement, better testing, and less bugs.
   3.259 +Given the assumptions that (1) an equal amount of code needs to be produced for a new \masqmail, (2) a third of existing code can be reused plus concepts and knowledge, and (3) development speed is like \person{Kurth}'s. Then it would take between two and three years to have a redesigned new \masqmail\ with the same features that \masqmail\ now has. Less time would be needed if a simpler architecture allows faster development, better testing, and less bugs.
   3.260  
   3.261  
   3.262  
   3.263 @@ -386,19 +386,19 @@
   3.264  
   3.265  Two ways of further development come to mind.
   3.266  
   3.267 -First, stick to the old architecture and try to add features as possible. This approach needs less effort to be spent, because a working code is alreads present. Further development is only adding small increments to a exiting code base. But the further development goes, the larger is the work needed to add more functionality, and the more bugs will appear, caused by the increasing complexity. Quality of the software will decrease, because lacking of clear internal structure encourages further work to be quick fixes rather than good solutions.
   3.268 +First, stick to the old architecture and try to add features as possible. This approach needs less effort to be spent, because a working code is already present. Further development is only adding small increments to a exiting code base. But the further development goes, the larger is the work needed to add more functionality, and the more bugs will appear, caused by the increasing complexity. Quality of the software will decrease, because lacking of clear internal structure encourages further work to be quick fixes rather than good solutions.
   3.269  
   3.270 -Second, the way of designing \masqmail\ from scratch and rebuilding it. A lot of time and work is required to do this. Additionally, a new design from scratch introduces new risks: Is the design really better? Was thought of everything? Will there come problems not seeable now? Starting from scratch also means a step back. Against these disadvantages stands the gain from the new design: Further development will be easier and probably faster, overall quality will be better and easier to keep up, and dead ends for further development are better avoidable.
   3.271 +Second, the way of designing \masqmail\ from scratch and rebuilding it. A lot of time and work is required to do this. Additionally, a new design from scratch introduces new risks: Is the design really better? Was thought of everything? Will there come problems not foreseeable now? Starting from scratch also means a step back. Against these disadvantages stands the gain from the new design: Further development will be easier and probably faster, overall quality will be better and easier to keep up, and dead ends for further development are better avoidable.
   3.272  
   3.273  Essentially, the decision for one of the ways depends on the question whether \masqmail\ should remain what it is, then the first option seems to be the right one to choose. Or whether \masqmail\ should become a modern \mta\ which is able to expand to include new functionality, then the second option is to choose.
   3.274  
   3.275  Security, extendability, and the other quality properties appear to have also crucial importance in this decision. If they are required for future versions of \masqmail, then a new design is a must.
   3.276  
   3.277 -\person{Graff} and \person{van Wyk} describe the situation well: ``[I]n today's world, your software is likely to have to operate in a very hostile security environment.'' \cite{graff03}. An old-fashioned \mta\ depends, for sure, on a dieing branch, called \name{trusted envrironments}. And nothing other than a fresh and better design will help to survive.
   3.278 +\person{Graff} and \person{van Wyk} describe the situation well: ``[I]n today's world, your software is likely to have to operate in a very hostile security environment.'' \cite{graff03}. An old-fashioned \mta\ depends, for sure, on a dieing branch, called \name{trusted environments}. And nothing other than a fresh and better design will help to survive.
   3.279  
   3.280  The suggested further development plan for \masqmail\ is:
   3.281  \begin{enumerate}
   3.282 -\item The short time goal: Add the most needed features, being authentication and encryption, to the current code base. \item The long time goal: Design a new architecture that satisfies the requirements identified, especially the quality requirements. The implementation of this design shall then, after being usable and throughoutly tested, superseed the old \masqmail.
   3.283 +\item The short time goal: Add the most needed features, being authentication and encryption, to the current code base. \item The long time goal: Design a new architecture that satisfies the requirements identified, especially the quality requirements. The implementation of this design shall then, after being usable and throughout tested, supersede the old \masqmail.
   3.284  \end{enumerate}
   3.285  
   3.286  This plan is similar to the change from \sendmail\ to \name{sendmail X}/\name{MeTA1}, except the \sendmail\ change was much too late.