I believe this raises the issue of short-term solutions (such as filtering on 'click') for which spammers will eventually find turnarounds vs long-term solutions. But do we need really need long-term solutions if an update of filtering terms every year is enough to keep the pace? Also, does a long-term solution against spamming even exist? Since the Graham solution from 2002 doesn't seem to have been implemented yet, the answer is no?

Another issue is the carbon/energetic cost of spamming. I'm no expert, but given the probably high figures, should this issue be escalated to a higher level, e.g. an international agreement along with heavy penalty if caught running a larger spamming farm? Compared to the difficult issues of drug trafficking etc. I don't see how there could not be a consensus for spam.

The whole point of these Bayesian filters is that you don't have to spend mental cycles thinking of clever words to filter on. Just mark 'em spam and not spam, the algorithms are plenty good at finding which words are spammy or legitimate without human help.