Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: OT: Re: USPS nonsense



I won a $5 (ca. 1990) bet that I would receive (with in 5 days at the Physics
Board of Studies) a post card addressed by a friend in NY city only: Cleyet
95064.

No redundancy there!

I will ask a friend to test: Cleyet 93901-3116

bc

P.s Redundantly addressed mail took ~ <5 days then.

P.p.s. I cheated; unique Zip for UCSC, offices (student residences have another
ZIP.)

"John S. Denker" wrote:

At 08:47 PM 10/16/00 -0500, Paul O. Johnson wrote:

... two-letter abbreviations ...

How many people have questioned the necessity of the USPS rule requiring
doubly-redundant addresses on envelopes that we send by mail? Why must we
write the city AND the state AND the zip code.

And the addressee-name is largely redundant with the other things, so
we're approaching triple-redundancy.

But fear not, O ye denizens of the land of the free and the home of the
brave!

You are free to spell out the state name if you don't like the two-letter
abbreviations.

You are free to omit the ZIP code if you want -- the postal inspector
will not imprison you in a mailbox for the rest of your life.

Or you can use the ZIP code and omit the city and state.

However, let me suggest that a certain amount of redundancy is good for
you. Once upon a time my buddies and I invented some Optical Character
Recognition technology that we sold to the USPS among others. Our OCR
machine was never able to scan ZIP codes with more than 99% accuracy.
That is mainly because something approaching 1% of all the envelopes have
_wrong_ ZIP codes on them. Not just illegible, just plain wrong. (I
inadvertently contributed to this statistic once, by filling out a form
with my home address and office ZIP code. This got into a government
database, and generated mis-addressed mailings for years afterward.)