But I can't see a way of seeding those into search engines via this forum as its structure does not lend itself to such a posting.
As Justin said, the need for evidence is paramount, which is why we aren't structured for a database.
From this it can be seen that if the top 3 ESPs (accounting for 84% of scammers) paid attention to the scam abuse infringing their terms of service and acted immediately and even preemptively to eradicate them, they could have a significant deterrent effect on the scams emanating from their services.
Nobody is arguing that this is not true. But reporting individual email addresses does nothing to make this happen.
Furthermore, I can confidently predict that they will be implementing spam-trap feedback measures to do their own detection and removal of offenders.
The major providers do in fact have some policies on the outgoing side already. Most have a maximum number of daily emails per account, to prevent spamming. Exceeding that limit may result in immediate suspension or closure. Some do have limited keyword filters on outgoing emails too. That is why many scammers send their formats from one email address, and use a different email address for replies.
In fact, if you look at many of the formats posted here, it is very common for them to be sent via a minor provider, or through a compromised domain, with the recipient directed to contact an address with those major providers. But that doesn't mean they are going to invest millions of dollars to better screen outgoing email. They are going to invest money on the things their users want.
Spam (scam) filtering at ingress is now very sophisticated and a pre-requisite to market acceptance and approval.
Very true. Users do not want to have to wade through a bunch of spam to get at their email, and they are likely to drop an email provider that doesn't filter well.
Spam and scam filtering at egress is the obvious next new point of differentiation.
Not true at all. Your average user doesn't know or care very much about the email providers' outgoing filters (unless they are too tight and affect them in a negative way--then they care very much). Reputation and marketability are tied to the features users want--things like uptime, interface / ease of use, storage space, and additional features (organizing, chat programs, etc.) Whether they can get the username they want is more important to the average user than whether scammers are sending emails through the provider.
The fact is, ESP's are not the only businesses that are used/abused by scammers, and that could play a larger role in preventing scams. The same exact point can be made about dating and classified sites that are flooded with scammers who choose not to more strongly filter new accounts, and for that matter, money transfer and shipping companies that fail to act on a name or account when first reported, allowing many other victims to be scammed before action is taken. But, these are all businesses--their goal is to make money--and decisions are made based on cost/benefit and risk--and it is cheaper for them to follow their current practice.
If and when ESP's reach a point at which they can ban someone permanently and prevent him/her from opening email addresses after they have been determined to be scammers, then baiters and sites like ours will certainly reconsider our approach.
For now, though, the facts remain the same: Report a scammer's email address, and he can open another in minutes (if he didn't open extras to start, which many do) at no cost. He will keep right on going with his scam (any experienced scammer will have forwarded his victim info to another account), and the next victim he approaches with his new email address will lose the opportunity to be warned.