On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: >> The issue of cron jobs is where Judge Zefram and I differ, and I'm >> considering both those judgments and my own initial thoughts carefully. > > Since Zefram uses cron jobs, I assume e considers them legally > effective. Does that mean that you don't? Or is the distinction > on some more subtle point?
Sorry, you're right, too much lumping of cases. A cron job (or as you have sometimes used, queued outlook mail which sends later) which is wholly under the control of the first-class person, is effective, and for timing purposes falls under NTDoC. Peekee's case challenges both who sent it and the timing of the sending, and is where Zefram and I differ. Side note to others: as root did to me with the "decrease -1" opinion, it's perfectly reasonable to overturn a precedent without appealing the original case that set it, provided the reasons for overturning are specifically addressed. Precedents aren't rules, they're more like... guidelines. -Goethe
