Spam not solved... Not by a long shot

Every so often it's kind of nice to see someone else (besides me) stick their neck out and have to be accountable for predictions they make. Clearly analysts specializing in market projections don't have to worry about that.

In January of 2004, Bill Gates made what turned out to be a ridiculous prediction that spam would be "solved" within two years. Clearly that hasn't happened, given that 80%+ of Internet e-mail traffic is spam. Sorry Bill you were wrong, which is OK. I don't have a problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is a few quotes from Ryan Hamlin, Microsoft's spam czar, trying to spin the fact that his bosses bosses boss was way off the mark.

Microsoft says it sees things differently. To "solve" the problem for consumers in the short run doesn't require eliminating spam entirely, said Ryan Hamlin, the general manager who oversees the company's anti-spam programs. Rather, he said, the idea is to contain it to the point that its impact on in-boxes is minor. (source: Seattle Post Intelligencer)

Ryan Hamlin, general manager of technology care and safety at Microsoft, is optimistic: "If you think of solving the spam problem as a marathon, we have passed the 20-mile marker." (source: PCWorld)

I'm spinning so hard, I think I'm going to puke.

Sure, IF users take advantage of the latest technologies and IF the moons align and IF they got a brand new email address, then spam is not as much of an issue to the user. But what about the "hidden" costs of spam? How much extra bandwidth is required because of spam traffic? How many extra Exchange servers has Microsoft sold because of the increased mail volume. How many millions of dollars have companies spent on defending against spam because the problem is "solved?"

What about phishing? is that not spam? Don't people who get fleeced out of their life savings by these fraudsters count?

Spam is not solved. Not by a long shot. And to say otherwise is just wrong and irresponsible. Just because the 10% of people who actually have their act together get less spam does not make the problem solved. I don't care what your definition of "solved" is. Users still need to implement messaging security defenses to keep the problem under control.

That type of ridiculous comment is so short sighted and inconsiderate to millions of companies that pay big money to protect their users from spam. It just goes to show how far a company will go to prove they are not wrong. 

Note to Ryan Hamlin and Microsoft spin-meisters: You look like fools for putting that kind of position out there. Admit Bill's position was too optimistic and move on actually trying to solve the problem. That's a much better use of your time.