comex wrote: >Now that the courts have ruled that the sender of the message neither >deregistered nor violated Rule 2149 (in which cases the impossibility of >identifying the sender would protect em),
Actually it would just make things worse when we discovered after the fact that e had been deregistered some time ago. If the ruling had gone that way, we could probably have traced you through the IP address in Peekee's web server log. >1. Rule 869 is amended to remove the sentence "E CANNOT register within >thirty days after doing so." Don't need to do this. The fact that e cannot register emself says nothing about whether e can be registered by other means. A proposal that says "Register Peekee." would suffice. -zefram
