Why were you downvoted? Who knows? Only the down-voter can answer that. People are able to down-vote for any reason they like, including personal whim or because they were feeling grumpy that day or because they don't like you. I know it can be annoying. I don't have much more to say on that, so let's move on to the policy question, of what this site ought to encourage/discourage:
The policy question. I don't think it's necessarily wrong or impermissible or inappropriate to post exploit code or identify malicious sites. I think it depends upon the circumstances. I do think there are some good practices you should follow if you are going to post links to malicious sites or snippets of malicious code:
Ask yourself, is it really necessary to post this information? Is it really very likely that this information will help someone provide a better answer, or is it just window-dressing?
Ask yourself, am I putting people at risk? For instance, including a clickable link to a known-malicious site is not a good idea, as people might accidentally click on it and get pwned. If you really need to identify the site, you can still provide a URL without making it clickable. Also, if you know that the link is malicious, provide a prominent warning next to it.
Ask yourself, am I making the question more useful to others, or less useful? One of the purposes of this site is to create archival-quality answers to questions of broad interest. (In other words, it's not just about helping you -- that's one goal, but another goal is to document answers that may help others.) Posting a specific malware link/sample risks making your question a lot narrower in scope and more localized in time. So, ask yourself: will posting the link increase the odds of getting general answers that will be broad utility to lots of other users, or will it have the effect of reducing the utility of answers by tending to make people focus in narrowly on a single malware sample?
Malware comes and goes. I expect that in most cases, it is more helpful to generalize and ask the general question, rather than to post a question about a single malicious site/malware sample. Thus, if you find yourself wanting/needing to post a malware link, that's a red flag that should trigger you to ask yourself whether your question might be too narrow and whether you can generalize your question.
In general, I would be reluctant to post malicious links in most cases. I certainly accept that there might be some situations where they are appropriate ... but I also expect that, for the reasons listed above, in most cases you won't need to post malicious links and indeed removing the malicious links may lead to a better question.
Your specific post. I don't think you did anything wrong in the way you posted some malware links. You did take steps to avoid putting people at risk, and that's laudable. You did exactly what I would want people to do, if they were going to post malicious links. And no, I don't think you violated any site policy or site rules, at least not as far as I know.
That said, I think your question is a better question after the edits to remove those links. It was a fine question as you originally posted it -- but it's an even better question, now that you've removed the links. Why? Because now the question has broader applicability. It addresses the general situation of how to report malicious URLs, which is something that is likely to be of broad interest and pops up all the time, not just your personal situation with this particular spam campaign (which is probably a very time-limited event and not likely to be of lasting interest to others).
I know when you get downvoted, it's easy to feel like you got spanked or punished for no reason. I hope you won't feel that way. I think you've contributed a great question to the site, and one that the process has helped make even better, so you should feel proud that you've contributed something good to the world. I appreciate it, and I'm sure other visitors will as well. I upvoted your question, and I expect others will as well.
