Perhaps not entirely a thing of the past, but spam filters have gotten very good.  I check my spam box every now and then just to make sure non-spam isn't getting filtered out, and it seems that most spam is pretty much the same as it was 10 years ago.  It doesn't seem to have evolved in the same way that malware has.  It is also a nice thought that perhaps internet users have gotten a little more sophisticated/jaded since ye olde days when, "You've got mail," was kind of a neat thing.  I would love to know how many times I marked spam as spam for yahoo, hotmail, gmail, et al over the years.  Combined with millions of other users marking hundreds of spam message, that must provide a lot of data for email providers to work with.  I would also be interested to see a breakdown of the effectiveness of spam.  While the costs of spamming are low, how high of a response rate could they possibly have?  I suppose it doesn't have to be many responses to make it worthwhile.   

I think it's a moving target so what works today might not work tomorrow. For the most part I get very little spam, but some still makes it through. It's less aggravating in the past, but when I see a spam message I do wonder why the filter hasn't caught it.

Hopefully we'll have able to stay ahead of the curve and keep the spammers in their place. I shudder to think of what would happen if we didn't have spam filters in place. Can you imagine the mess we'd have to deal with on a daily basis in our inboxes? Ugh.