On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > R2170 already defines "Executor" (as "the first-class person who sends > it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be sent"). Going > back to "Grantor" and "Holder" would work. (History lesson: the rules > used to explicitly allow granting power of attorney, then it was > repealed during a period of mass simplification, then someone tried it > via contract and we decided that that worked.)
By the way, if we're going to make power of attorney explicit, we should learn from Rule 2170-- not all executorships are now nor should be announcements that I act on behalf of you. When Googlebot causes PNP to send a message, there are several different first-class persons about equally likely to have most directly caused the message to be sent, none of which really match what an Executor is supposed to be. We could force Executors to be explicit, but I think it would be better to just not use the concept, so we can let the PNP live naturally as a robot, instead of forcing it into the mold of a traditional partnership.
