On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2. By CFJ 1303 and 1895, the statement publisher = statement sender > and remains you (the physical sender of the message), even when you > act on behalf of someone else. > ------dividing line here ------------ > 3. For CFJ 1791 to work, we must accept the legal fiction that the > announcement was the Other's "action".
I assume you mean CFJ 1719, which I believe is somewhat invalidated by the passage of Rule 2170, which would, in my reading, allow someone in a similar situation as Peekee was then to simply make a CoE on the claimed identity of the sender. In any case, I think it's bad precedent; Peekee didn't, IIRC, explicitly authorize anyone to act on eir behalf; e simply provided a means to send messages that claimed to be from em. One could argue that by publishing your email address here you've given me the means to forge messages from you, and thus if I do so they should be taken to be published by you and to let me act on your behalf. I'd now be in violation of Rule 2170 for doing so, but really, the evidence against someone breaking that rule would, unless they were fairly inept, be pretty weak. In the age of webmail, tracing the actual sender of any message is practically impossible without an enforceable power of subpoena, and difficult even then.
