Intresting. Thanks for sharing.

And people will occasionally send "fake" spam in order to discredit an organisation. Is that what is happening here? I work for NetNames (part of NetBenefit plc) and as far as I know we were not involved in creating these messages.
Any information about the source of this spam would be greatly appreciated. The examples I've seen all seem to come from widely disparate networks.

Header information doesn't amount to spit nowadays - moderately trivial to forge, definitely trivial to use relays etc, etc. The value of the path information is largely anecdotal.

The only thing that matters is who pressed the send key and who (if applicable) paid them to hit it.

All I know is that I've received a bunch of spam puportedly from Netnames. If you guys didn't send it, it would be really helpful if you tracked down who did.

Here's the headers you were looking for...

-------- Original Message --------
From: - Fri Aug 29 19:08:00 2003
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-Path: 
Received: from [68.80.104.41] (HELO pcp04933791pcs.benslm01.pa.comcast.net)  by fr2.webmaillogin.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.1)  with SMTP id 5222713 for rwmrader@tucows.com; Fri, 29 Aug 2003 15:39:59 -0400
Received: from [15.203.181.64] by pcp04933791pcs.benslm01.pa.comcast.net with ESMTP id <692115-33904>; Fri, 29 Aug 2003 19:40:02 -0100
Message-ID: <4v55$8$3z$w-29a$0g$748@43ig.91j4u.vww>
From: NetNames 
Reply-To: NetNames 
To: rwmrader@tucows.com
Subject: CHEAP DOMAIN NAMES @ NETNAMES.COM
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 19:40:02 -0100
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;	boundary="85C9E1AD.A2B6FDCFEC..."
X-Priority: 3

Nonsense. Netnames.com did send this spam. They bought a list off an unscrupulous provider.
It is true one may attempt to disparage another company, but it does not make commercial sense in this instance due to the volume and nature of this UCE.
It is sad day when listed companies resort to this activity.