The future is here. It is Mister Hamsi. The latest fad in worms is sure to be entertaining while your docs are wiped like a baby's bottom. We'll all be like babies watching Teletubbies while our hard drives churn with a slathering of sniffers and backdoors.
How come Microsoft hasn't really done anything with Outlook in the past 3 revisions? I just bought Outlook 2003 and found a technicolor Outlook 2000. Spam Filtering...thanks, don't actually stop the spam, just make me figure out how to siphon the crap out of my inbox myself. Someone at work ask a good question (at least for corporate environments) - Why can't a user queue mail that needs to be delivered to another person, instead of dropping it when the destination mailbox is full? We have a decent retry mechanism for general mail delivery (built into SMTP RFCs), why not a similar model for "mailbox full" or "destination unknown"? The typical solution is that someone gets so pissed off that their VP (or mine) demands to have the mailbox limit raised for that user. Obviously not the best solution.
This is a very simple concept that Microsoft should have thought about providing years ago. If anyone cares, you would naturally force the user to queue the mail in their mailbox, instead of on the server. This would prevent the problem of DOSing a mail server. I understand that determining when an email can reach a users mailbox can be difficult (except if its Exchange!), but at least process the responses from an Exchange server and place the email into a Retry folder or something. Its not rocket science.
They want to say that they are providing a better experience and want to show off the next big thing - Presense, but they fail to actually implement simple things like this that would make a lot of people happy.