On 8/13/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 refers to a rule that doesn't exist that referred to Date headers
explicitly.
866 refers to time of receipt, and the rules say that an action takes
effect at the time of publication.
I don't see anything in those CFJs that says that things take effect
at the time of receipt that would still apply to the current ruleset.
Did I miss anything?
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
