<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Postal Rates, with New Confusing &quot;Thickness&quot; Rules.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/13/new-postal-rates-with-new-confusing-thickness-rules/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/13/new-postal-rates-with-new-confusing-thickness-rules/</link>
	<description>The Neat Side of the Web</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:27:17 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The CyberSlug</title>
		<link>http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/13/new-postal-rates-with-new-confusing-thickness-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-110312</link>
		<dc:creator>The CyberSlug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2007 20:48:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/13/new-postal-rates-with-new-confusing-thickness-rules/#comment-110312</guid>
		<description>This is really surprising - I&#039;ve run into the &quot;your envelope cannot be thicker than X or you will have to use a higher rate service&quot; restriction several times doing eBay, so I&#039;m not sure where the idea that this is a wholly new development came about.  I do recall the cutoff being bigger than 1/4 inch though; maybe that changed?  Or maybe it&#039;s new to &quot;first-class&quot; mail but already existed for padded mailers (which are bigger than 1/4&quot; thick even empty)?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is really surprising - I've run into the "your envelope cannot be thicker than X or you will have to use a higher rate service" restriction several times doing eBay, so I'm not sure where the idea that this is a wholly new development came about.  I do recall the cutoff being bigger than 1/4 inch though; maybe that changed?  Or maybe it's new to "first-class" mail but already existed for padded mailers (which are bigger than 1/4" thick even empty)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Auz</title>
		<link>http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/13/new-postal-rates-with-new-confusing-thickness-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-110288</link>
		<dc:creator>Auz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2007 19:38:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/13/new-postal-rates-with-new-confusing-thickness-rules/#comment-110288</guid>
		<description>Actually the UK system can get confusing, and more expensive. For example, my ageing father forwards on a small amount of mail to me, usually in an A4 envelope. Prior to the change it cost Â£1 to send; post-change it cost Â£1, unless the envelope was too thick, in which case it cost Â£1.11. However, the Post Office themselves can get confused, and charge Â£1 when deposited, but refuse to deliver it because it&#039;s missing postage at the other end. They left a note (which they normally do for free with packages too large for the letterbox) saying it would cost me 11p plus a Â£1 penalty fee to pick up the letter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually the UK system can get confusing, and more expensive. For example, my ageing father forwards on a small amount of mail to me, usually in an A4 envelope. Prior to the change it cost Â£1 to send; post-change it cost Â£1, unless the envelope was too thick, in which case it cost Â£1.11. However, the Post Office themselves can get confused, and charge Â£1 when deposited, but refuse to deliver it because it's missing postage at the other end. They left a note (which they normally do for free with packages too large for the letterbox) saying it would cost me 11p plus a Â£1 penalty fee to pick up the letter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anji Capes</title>
		<link>http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/13/new-postal-rates-with-new-confusing-thickness-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-110174</link>
		<dc:creator>Anji Capes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2007 15:15:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/13/new-postal-rates-with-new-confusing-thickness-rules/#comment-110174</guid>
		<description>Oh come on! We&#039;ve had this system in the UK for some time now and for the most part it costs me *less* to send letters and packages than under the old system. It&#039;s really not as complicated as you seem to think.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh come on! We've had this system in the UK for some time now and for the most part it costs me *less* to send letters and packages than under the old system. It's really not as complicated as you seem to think.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mitten</title>
		<link>http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/13/new-postal-rates-with-new-confusing-thickness-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-110131</link>
		<dc:creator>mitten</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2007 12:38:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/13/new-postal-rates-with-new-confusing-thickness-rules/#comment-110131</guid>
		<description>&gt;&gt; and some say mailings could be severely curtailed due to higher postage costs.


They say that like it&#039;s a bad thing.  I say hurrah!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt; and some say mailings could be severely curtailed due to higher postage costs.</p>
<p>They say that like it's a bad thing.  I say hurrah!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!--
This site's performance optimized by W3 Total Cache:

W3 Total Cache improves the user experience of your blog by caching
frequent operations, reducing the weight of various files and providing
transparent content delivery network integration.

Learn more about our WordPress Plugins: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using memcached
Database Caching 1/10 queries in 0.011 seconds using memcached

Served from: 10.14.45.4 @ 2009-11-25 20:46:16 -->