On 8/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > root wrote: > > > On 8/12/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Dates given are generally from the "Date:" header of the applicable > >> message. This is not the legally effective time (CFJ 1646), but is an > >> approximation of it. See the message in question for exact timing. > > > > Eep. Looking at CFJ 1646, I'm somewhat disappointed that the Judge > > offered no arguments for eir departure from the previous findings of > > CFJs 707 and 866. Now all my timestamps are wrong. > > 707 and 866 both pertain to time of receipt; 1646 pertains to time of > transmission.
All three pertain to effective time, which 1646 redefines as time of transmission rather than time of receipt. Hopefully, the difference is minor enough as to not affect the outcome of anything from the past 13 years. -root
