<?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 &#8220;Thickness&#8221; 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, 16 Feb 2012 19:30:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<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 &#8211; I&#8217;ve run into the &#8220;your envelope cannot be thicker than X or you will have to use a higher rate service&#8221; restriction several times doing eBay, so I&#8217;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&#8217;s new to &#8220;first-class&#8221; mail but already existed for padded mailers (which are bigger than 1/4&#8243; 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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;s a bad thing.  I say hurrah!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Page Cached by VaroCMS @ Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:40:10 +0000 --><!-- page generated in 0.0697 seconds -->
