6 ms·
Tape it to a brick, for good measure.
by meej 7y ago
Tape it to a brick, for good measure.
- joncrane 7y agoCommon fallacy. The USPS will not deliver anything significantly heavier than the expected weight of the mail piece.
- dawnerd 7y agoSome might slip through the cracks. But in most cases they'd just give the receiver a postage due notice and those junk companies wouldn't pay so it get trashed anyways. Better to make sure the company gets it so they have to pay someone to open it.
- chipperyman573 7y agoHow could it slip through the cracks and still charge the company the full charge?
- dawnerd 7y agoI meant usps might miss it. It happens, sometimes they don't catch overweight items. Fun fact, there's some businesses that take advantage of this fact. I ordered two huge rolls of bubble wrap and the shipper stuck a first class label on it. I weighed the bag and it was 3lbs. All depends on if the postal employee feels like bothering with it.
- chipperyman573 7y agoInteresting, I assumed that it was an automated system to reject it ("sorry, the computer won't accept it unless the scale has a lower weight than what was paid, nothing I can do"). But if it's manual that makes sense
- raybb 7y ago> The USPS will not deliver anything significantly heavier than the expected weight of the mail piece Do you have a source for this? What do they do with it then?
- Wingman4l7 7y agoThat's poorly worded. I think what the OP was getting at is that the prepaid return envelopes are some sort of commercial first class flat rate, not meant to cover packages of a higher weight and larger dimension (drawing from extensive eBay packaging shipping experience, here).
- catalogia 7y agoHassling the USPS by making them dispose of a brick seems like suitable enough punishment for them delivering junk mail in the first place.
- colejohnson66 7y agoIt’s not their fault their underfunded.
- colinmhayes 7y agoUSPS wouldn't exist without junk mail. I thank the junk senders for their patronage of our postal system.
- catalogia 7y agoThey could charge a reasonable price, or receive [more] funding from taxes. The notion that scam/junk mail is essential to the system is moronic.
- chipperyman573 7y agoThey could, or they could let private companies subsidize it. The only ("only") problem I personally have is that it generates soooo much waste. It is always so frustrating checking the mail, and immediately dropping 10 or so sheets of paper in the trash before I even close the mailbox (the safeway mailer is especially bad at this...)
- subhro 7y agoIf we could avoid junk mail, that would definitely be ideal case scenario. I find a little comfort in believing that what I throw in the recycle bin (which is all the junk mail) gets recycled into new paper.
- lonelappde 7y agoYou're saying it's the USPS fault that customers demand service for unconscionably low price?
- toss1 7y agoThey do, at least if done properly. I once when I lived in a rural area, with a small PO received a despicable scam focusing on elders, containing a return-postage-guaranteed envelope. The postmistress couldn't provide direct instructions, but enough for me to surmise that anything I could actually fit in the envelope would work. I filled it as full as possible with thin lead sheet (often used for flashing around chimney-roof intersections), a bit of reinforcing clear packing tape around the edges, and a nasty note. When I brought it back for mailing, I got a bit of a smile and assurance that it would go properly. Satisfying, and if everyone did it...
- joering2 7y agoHow much would that lead weight and how much would it cost them?