On 5/21/08, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, partnerships are certainly capable of doing stuff, and they're > most likely able to do stuff by announcement, which probably means > they can send public messages, if their contract allows people to do > that on their behalf. Likewise, ehird and I are allowing each other to > send public messages on each other's behalf. Or maybe there's > something special about the contract that defines a partnership that > lets it allow people to act on the partnership's behalf.
The way I see it, assuming you can allow each other to send messages on each others' behalf like acting, you can't actually make that happen automatically. It would only be allowed (just like I do X 10 times) as an unambiguous shorthand. So, if that contract was private, it wouldn't work, and it doesn't work here if allowing the contract's "automatic" mechanism to work would cause an infinite number of actions, because there's no such thing as an infinite message, CFJ 1584.
