Goethe wrote: > I personally didn't believe it possible without legislation, but then > I found Zefram's judgement in CFJ 1719 to be extraordinarily thorough
To save a lookup, this was the CFJ that found that Peekee's "anyone can send e-mail on my behalf via an unprotected web form" worked. > and convincing, I think it would take something of equal weight and > thoroughness to contradict it; it has clearly not been considered to be > against the general interests of the game, nor considered generally > ridiculous, since that CFJ. > > Also, the act of using it makes it known, so the recordkeepor does > know about it when it's used. I think it *is" necessary to confirm > the relationship among all parties when it was previously unknown; > e.g. in this case Murphy confirmed it immediately, so the burden on > recordkeepors was trivial. I was just about to say. Even if the alleged grantor doesn't confirm, though, eir lack of denial would also be pretty strong evidence.
