"We're still dealing with the cost of delivering spam, the cost of defending against spam, the cot of dealing with the ever-changing tactics of spammers. [Filters] deal with the symptom of spam, and not the cure."
By MX Logic's numbers, spam as a percentage of total e-mail declined in 2005 from the previous year. Last year, spam accounted for, on average, 68 percent of all e-mail traffic, the company reported in late December. In 2004, the average was 77 percent.
But a drop in spam don't mean much, Chasin argued. "You only have to ask e-mail users about how well [filtering] technology is performing to know that spam is still a problem. A few percentage points difference isn't really noticeable in the in-box. What we're lacking is some kind of user satisfaction index."
One analyst, however, argued that Gates had been on the money.
"Yes, I think spam has been solved," said Maurene Caplan Grey, formerly with Gartner but now an independent analyst working under her Grey Consulting nameplate. "No, it's not going to be eliminated," she added, but filtering has made spam manageable.
Traditional spam that hypes products is more a nuisance than anything. What isn't just irritating, however, are the messages that look like spam, but are actually bearing malicious code or trying to dupe consumers into identity theft.
"The spam that tells me I've won the lotto, that's just annoying," she said. "It doesn't causes any [real] harm, and if that increases, who cares? But I'm really concerned about the clever spam which carries a [malicious] payload or the means to carry out a phishing attack."
Even two years ago Gates himself conceded that his predictions didn't always pan out. Among Microsoft's missteps: misjudging the importance of the Internet (which led to a catch-up with Netscape in the browser market), and the success of Google.
Did he predict his lack of prophetic skills?
"It's not such good news for Bill Gates' skills as a fortune teller," said Cluley. "Spam is clearly not a thing of the past."