Yehuda, My top spammers list is, in alphabetical order, counting 2013-2014 from my and my associated e-mail accounts (give or take 5% error):
AASCIT: 121 e-mails
Academic Journals: several dozen (mainly invitations to review)
Apex Journals: 50 e-mails
Basic Research Journals: 153 e-mails
Blue Pen Journals: 45 e-mails
Comprehensive Research Journals: 122 e-mails
Herald Journals: 67 e-mails
International Scholars Journals: 231 e-mails
Intercontinental Research Journals: 53 e-mails
International Research Journals: 718 e-mails
LinkedIn: 871 e-mails (all invitations to link)
Merit Research Journals: 164 e-mails
Omics: about 50 (including the same style you are a specialist bla-bla-bla)
Open Science Online: 97 e-mails
Peak Journals: 40 e-mails
Photon JOurnals: 206 e-mails
Random predatory publisher spam: 1557 e-mails
Prime Journals: 83 e-mails
ResearchGate: 87 e-mails
Science Publishing Group: 315 e-mails
Scientific spam related to company products: in escess of 600 e-mails
Standard Research Journals: 84 e-mails
Universal Research Journals: 55 e-mails
Wudpecker Journals: 172 e-mails
What this indicates:
a) scientists are bombarded with rubbish daily, and it is increasingly difficult to discern what is honest and accurate from what is not.
b) precious time is lost either filetering out spam, classifying it, or reading it. These publishers hope that by throwing in dozens of hooks loaded with palstic bait int the science waters that they will hook some good fish. And they do.
c) Omics does exactly what at least another 20 heavy spammers do, most of which are listed on Beall’s 2014 list.
d) In addition tot he above list, there are about 50 OA publishers that have sent me a moderate amount of spam in 2 years (20-40 e-mails).