He didn’t propose a solution. He essentially said that a message with a spammy link should be treated as spam, which is a restatement of the problem.
It’s not that; it’s that it sounds to me like jumping to a solution without considering the potentially dangerous consequences and without first establishing that the problem exists.
Would you want to see more phishing messages caught even if it might mean more good messages in the Junk mailbox? Would you want SpamSieve to do more deep analysis of the links even if it means sacrificing some privacy and letting spammers see that your e-mail address is valid?
I don’t mean to sound dismissive, but I’m accustomed to hearing from customers who very confidently tell me why a spam e-mail wasn’t caught, and 99% of the time the real reason was something else entirely.
More specifically, I am not seeing in actual data from customers that there is a particular problem with messages of the type you describe getting through. If you are seeing that, please follow the instructions here for reporting uncaught spam messages. Please flag the messages in the log, save a diagnostic report, and attach the messages by dragging them out of the Log window. Then there will be something concrete to investigate.