Jeff said:
I somewhat disagree with that premise. There's a disincentive for shared hosting companies to allow their services to be abused since it adds to their traffic and support costs and gains them little. Abuses at legitimate providers tends to be a money loser. On the other hand if they ignore abuse complaints they can save on immediate support costs.
Good point. I think that this certainly causes this problem to be "minimized". But, I still see a "niche" area where spamming "paths" pop up quickly and where some of these are not taken down in a timely manner.
For example, there was one spammer from a large hosting company in Spain (terra.es) who sent spam for **months** before finally being shut down. It was easy for me to manually blacklist them... but I wonder how many others are like this one who use the same URL long enough to warrant being added to **some** kind of list, but who are not so obnoxiously proliferate so as to catch my individual attention.
Rob McEwen