A MUA might ask the console operator for permission to proceed when:
1. A mail message wants to run a program. (e.g., ECMAscripts.)
2. An attachment is executable. (Nearly universal practice.)
3. A program wants to write to a file. (Usually not trapped more
than once per execution if at all.)
4. A program wants to read your address book. (Does any mail system
that offers this functionality limit it at all?)
5. A program wants to send mail. (e.g., having MAPI's Send notify
the user and queue the proposed message as a draft instead of sending.)
All of those precautions would help prevent the destruction and
spread of worms. (These mail things aren't "VIRUS"es, technically.)
If you had to pick one, #5, asking before sending mail and making
the user explicitly approve each message, might be the best choice,
because the resulting messages are easily reviewed and confirmed,
and the other actions might be more frequently legitimate.
These sorts of things are less common on the more heterogeneous
Unix world, but Unix mailers are just as culpable. If I wanted to
be consistent, I would demand that anything I run on Unix (without
a special permitted shell) which connects to port 25 should be
intercepted, wrapped with an "ok queued" SMTP response, and
forwarded to me instead. Would anyone argue that isn't reasonable?
Cheers,
James
P.S. this mail sent with /ucb/Mail by Bill Joy c. 1980
