Carrier Endorsement and "Kills Cancellation"
Old Sarge
concerning mail being endorsed by the Carrier and then
"back cancelled" by us to return the item to sender.
We receive around six or so GMPCs of trayed letter mail
from the Stations daily. This mail has been determined to
be undeliverable for various reasons. We are charged with
putting "today's" date on the bottom (cancellation mark).
We have many types of cancellation marks which range
from "Return to Sender", "Address Unknown", etc.
Some Carriers are dilligent enough to put the reason why the
item is undeliverable on the front of the envelope, while others
are not so dilligent and just batch the letters together with only
the top one stating the reason for return. Some Stations have
nice little stickers so the Carrier doesn't have to hand print or
rubber stamp anymore.
The problem comes in when we have to cancel these letters.
Some of us use the generic die "Return To Sender". This works
well IF the PROPER endorsement is on the item being cancelled.
If the proper endorsement isn't there, the receiver will not know why
the item wasn't delivered and sometimes will attempt another delivery.
What does the Manual(s) say about this? Are Carriers supposed to
endorse each piece of mail separately with the reason for non-delivery,
or can they "batch" a group together with the endorsement placed on the
top item?
CFS also sends us undeliverable mail with little yellow stickers. This
mail usually contains the exact reason for non-delivery, so the "Return to
Sender" die is appropriate.
I'm sure this is not an isolated problem and is probably common throughout
the country. Swtiching dies between letters is a bitch, especially when you
have to replace the date die in the process and it drops or you lose
something.
I believe the generic "Return to Sender" would be more appropriate IF the
items
were endorsed properly.
Comments please.
Dee
Roger Galliett wrote in message <35b68441...@nntp.alaska.net>...
>>Some Carriers are dilligent enough to put the reason why the
>>item is undeliverable on the front of the envelope, while others
>>are not so dilligent and just batch the letters together with only
>>the top one stating the reason for return. Some Stations have
>>nice little stickers so the Carrier doesn't have to hand print or
>>rubber stamp anymore.
>>
>>endorse each piece of mail separately with the reason for non-delivery,
>>or can they "batch" a group together with the endorsement placed on the
>>top item?
>
>
>mail stamped RETURN TO SENDER - UNDELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED and I've
>had to scratch my head several times to explain to the customer what
>is probably wrong with the letter.
>
>As carriers, our instructions are to individually "endorse"
>undeliverable mail with the exception of insufficient address or
>forward expired mail. On those two, we endorse the top piece and band
>them all together. This results in confusion -- especially when the
>machine which stamps the letters in the lower left has little or no
>ink!
>
>As in many other situations, it's perhaps best to ignore the rules and
>endorse each piece. What are they always saying about "goals" and the
>"voice of the customer"? I say give 'em good service and to heck with
>management shortsightedness.
>
>Another issue: last year we received brand new stampers. They left off
>a few nice endorsements like FORWARD EXPIRED and NO SUCH #. They added
>some like MOVED, LEFT NO ADDRESS. Is everyone now using BOTH the old
>and new stampers like we are? Sure seems stupid they couldn't come out
>with ONE stamper that has all the endorsements on it.
They do have those. Talk to your supply clerk. But then you have to check
the appropriate box.
Dee
>
Dee
Old Sarge wrote in message <6p4k66$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>Since I'm not a Carrier or Clerk, I am not familiar with the rules
>concerning mail being endorsed by the Carrier and then
>
>Some Carriers are dilligent enough to put the reason why the
>item is undeliverable on the front of the envelope, while others
>are not so dilligent and just batch the letters together with only
>the top one stating the reason for return. Some Stations have
>nice little stickers so the Carrier doesn't have to hand print or
>rubber stamp anymore.
Depending upon the endorsement, different rules apply. Expired forwards
need only be banded together and the top one endorsed. The nixie clerk (or
whomever) then has to stamp them all up. Deceased has to be "handwritten"
on each one, and then stamped witht he finger. There are only a certain
amount of endorsements that are recognized. You cannot put a "forward
expired" endorsement on a letter and return it. I'm wracking my brains here
trying to remember the correct wording to be used. I use the stamp hundreds
of times each day, and I'm drawing a blank. Has to be the heat or old age.
But basically it says, "return to sender, undeliverable as addressed."
Yeah, I think that's it.
>
>The problem comes in when we have to cancel these letters.
>Some of us use the generic die "Return To Sender". This works
>well IF the PROPER endorsement is on the item being cancelled.
>If the proper endorsement isn't there, the receiver will not know why
>the item wasn't delivered and sometimes will attempt another delivery.
It's the clerks duty to see that each letter has the proper endorsement
stamped on it, the zip and barcode blacked out with the handy-dandy grease
pencils, and if the return address is on the flip side, the letter gets
turned over and stamped again.
>
<snip>
>
>CFS also sends us undeliverable mail with little yellow stickers. This
>mail usually contains the exact reason for non-delivery, so the "Return to
>Sender" die is appropriate.
We're not supposed to be getting those back. It's a glitch in the system.
>
>I'm sure this is not an isolated problem and is probably common throughout
>the country. Swtiching dies between letters is a bitch, especially when
you
>have to replace the date die in the process and it drops or you lose
>something.
>I believe the generic "Return to Sender" would be more appropriate IF the
>items
>were endorsed properly.
>
>Comments please.
What are the exact endorsements are your various dies?
If you need any more info, I can pretty much get it for you exactly as
written.
Dee
I would follow my boss anywhere, if only out of morbid curiosity!
Eddie
"Be uncomfortable; be sand, not oil, in the machinery
of the world." - Gunter Eich
===================================
Roger Galliett
>item is undeliverable on the front of the envelope, while others
>are not so dilligent and just batch the letters together with only
>the top one stating the reason for return. Some Stations have
>nice little stickers so the Carrier doesn't have to hand print or
>rubber stamp anymore.
>
Trish
> the appropriate box.
>
> Dee
> >
Could you all please explain what you are talking about. All of our
undeliverable mail is put in different holdouts in the throwback case.
The nixie clerk has to keep them separate when they pull the case. MLNA
is sent to CFS for handling so we don't even have a stamp that says
that.
It sounds like you all are talking about a central location for this. Is
it different in and AO.
Just curious.
Trish
Roger Galliett
>undeliverable mail is put in different holdouts in the throwback case.
>The nixie clerk has to keep them separate when they pull the case. MLNA
>is sent to CFS for handling so we don't even have a stamp that says
>that.
>
>It sounds like you all are talking about a central location for this. Is
>it different in and AO.
We have a throwback case that is more-or-less as called for in the
M-41. There's a slot for FORWARD EXPIRED mail, one for INSUFFICIENT
ADDRESS and one for most of the others. THEORETICALLY we aren't even
supposed to be using FORWARD EXPIRED anymore. D'oh!
The older rubber stamps used to have FORWARD EXPIRED on them. The new
rubber stamps don't. You can also get sticker-type labels which have
various endorsements. The newer ones don't have FORWARD EXPIRED. The
new rubber stamps have MOVED, LEFT NO ADDRESS but don't have NO SUCH #
on them. Is that dumb, or what?
Someday the USPS may get their collective heads out of their butts and
develop a very clear and logical policy for return endorsements. I'm
not holding my breath.
As for MOVED, LEFT NO ADDRESS, yes, we are SUPPOSED to send those to
CFS. However, many carriers will simply stamp them and conveniently
avoid initialling them to avoid liability in case the resident is
still there.
If I do MNOs, I make sure I leave a notice in the box and then hold
the mail for at least 10 days as required just in case someone IS
there. This saves my butt from an embarassing mistake like the one
that happened to a friend of mine who works 2 weeks on/2 weeks off on
the North Slope. She came home to find her mailbox empty so she called
me. Conveniently, I worked at the case across the aisle from her
route. The T carrying her route just ASSUMED she had moved and sent
her mail to CFS. Luckily, it was caught at CFS in the nick of time.
Had she not known me, she probably would have had 2 weeks of mail
returned to sender.
Old Sarge
terms.
A few years ago while walking up the block to my outside, unsecured, mailbox
to collect my mail, I was wearing my 49ers jacket. My Carrer stopped and
asked me why I was wearing HIS jacket. I told him I was from San Francisco.
He said he was from there also and that he started working for the USPS
there.
I told him my Mother worked at Rincon Annex and had been there since 1948.
I told him her name was Dorothy Dominguez and he said she was his first
Supervisor when he was a Clerk.
Damn small world. His brother and I ran in the same group (gang(?)) when we
were teenagers.
That's almost like the guy I met in the Army who's Mother was a good friend
of my
Mother and we had the SAME girlfriend at the SAME time and we didn't know
each other. Damn small world.
Adam H. Kerman
Roger Galliett <rog...@alaska.net> wrote:
>We have a throwback case that is more-or-less as called for in the
>M-41. There's a slot for FORWARD EXPIRED mail, one for INSUFFICIENT
>ADDRESS and one for most of the others. THEORETICALLY we aren't even
>supposed to be using FORWARD EXPIRED anymore. D'oh!
>The older rubber stamps used to have FORWARD EXPIRED on them. The new
>rubber stamps don't. You can also get sticker-type labels which have
>various endorsements. The newer ones don't have FORWARD EXPIRED. The
>new rubber stamps have MOVED, LEFT NO ADDRESS but don't have NO SUCH #
>on them. Is that dumb, or what?
FOE MUST BE sent to CFS. That's why you don't have a rubber stamp for it. We
had a discussion about this a couple of months ago. You aren't supposed to
group everything together that's sent to CFS. But, I don't understand why
FOEs couldn't be grouped with the regular forwards. CFS should be able to
recognize whether or not the Change of Address has expired and apply the
correct yellow label to it. The mailer is entitled to know the change of
address even if the piece can't be forwarded.
After 18 months, you aren't supposed to send it to CFS, but stamp it "Not
Deliverable as Addressed--Unable to Forward". This one is a catch-all.
There's an Undeliverable as Addressed endorsement: Attempted--Not Known. When
is this used? For accountables?
>As for MOVED, LEFT NO ADDRESS, yes, we are SUPPOSED to send those to CFS.
>However, many carriers will simply stamp them and conveniently avoid
>initialling them to avoid liability in case the resident is still there.
If they are sent to CFS, the carrier doesn't initial them in the first place,
so how can he be blamed for a mistake like that? It's CFS's fault!
>If I do MNOs, I make sure I leave a notice in the box and then hold the mail
>for at least 10 days as required just in case someone IS there.
Acronym overload! What is MNO?
Dee
Trish wrote in message <6p8ssu$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>undeliverable mail is put in different holdouts in the throwback case.
>The nixie clerk has to keep them separate when they pull the case. MLNA
>is sent to CFS for handling so we don't even have a stamp that says
>that.
>
>It sounds like you all are talking about a central location for this. Is
>it different in and AO.
>
>
>Trish
OK, there is a way this is supposed to be done universally (at least in the
USPS, anyway). All throwback cases are supposed to be set up the same way.
However, not every office has the identical piece of equipment. Not every
office even understands the "authorized" way to set it up. Our office uses
what suits us best, which is not the proper, official, letter-of-the-law
way. And, I am not even going to address it, as it is impractical, and not
highly-efficient way of doing things.
However....(drum roll, please), here is a list of the only recognized (and
allowed endorsements):
Not deliverable as addressed unable to forward
No Mail Receptacle
Vacant
Unclaimed
Refused
Attempted Addressee Unknown
No Such Street
Insufficient Address
No Such Number
No Such Office in State
We do not do Moved Left No Forward. An Employee Generated Forward has to be
done by the carrier stating that the party is a MLNF. After that those
letters are just sent to up to CFS for them to handle. Carrier cases are
supposed to be set up so that at the end of the last row are slots for
carrier endorsed mail. One slot is provided for expireds. Therefore, only
the top one has to be marked and then they're all banded together and put in
the throwback case. There's also a slot for unknowns. Same rule applies.
If there is no individual slot for a particular endorsement, then each piece
must be marked by the carrier.
If you're not sure a party has moved without leaving a forward, you're
supposed to hold the mail for 10 days. Then you make out the card.
I won't go into flats. That's a whole other ballgame, and my brain is
already strained.
Dee
Adam H. Kerman wrote in message <6paca7$neq$1...@chinet.chinet.com>...
>In article <35b80f3c...@nntp.alaska.net>,
>Roger Galliett <rog...@alaska.net> wrote:
>
>>We have a throwback case that is more-or-less as called for in the
>>M-41. There's a slot for FORWARD EXPIRED mail, one for INSUFFICIENT
>>ADDRESS and one for most of the others. THEORETICALLY we aren't even
>>supposed to be using FORWARD EXPIRED anymore. D'oh!
>
>>The older rubber stamps used to have FORWARD EXPIRED on them. The new
>>rubber stamps don't. You can also get sticker-type labels which have
>>various endorsements. The newer ones don't have FORWARD EXPIRED. The
>>new rubber stamps have MOVED, LEFT NO ADDRESS but don't have NO SUCH #
>>on them. Is that dumb, or what?
>
>FOE MUST BE sent to CFS. That's why you don't have a rubber stamp for it.
We
>had a discussion about this a couple of months ago. You aren't supposed to
>group everything together that's sent to CFS. But, I don't understand why
>FOEs couldn't be grouped with the regular forwards. CFS should be able to
>recognize whether or not the Change of Address has expired and apply the
>correct yellow label to it. The mailer is entitled to know the change of
>address even if the piece can't be forwarded.
CFS doesn't do FOE's. That's in-house. They only do MLNF and good
forwards.
>
>After 18 months, you aren't supposed to send it to CFS, but stamp it "Not
>Deliverable as Addressed--Unable to Forward". This one is a catch-all.
No, it isn't a catch-all. It's just for FOE's.
>
>There's an Undeliverable as Addressed endorsement: Attempted--Not Known.
When
>is this used? For accountables?
When you get a letter that you really don't recognize the name, know it's
not a FOE, MLNF, Deceased, or whatever. You attempt delivery with either a
questionable sticker on it, handwritten questionmark, or something to let
the patron know you're not an idiot misdelivering the mail, just attempting
delivery on an unrecognized name. If you get it back, then it is
"Attempted - Unknown". If you don't get it back, well, then it's not your
problem anymore, except that maybe that new name now lives there?
>
>>As for MOVED, LEFT NO ADDRESS, yes, we are SUPPOSED to send those to CFS.
>>However, many carriers will simply stamp them and conveniently avoid
>>initialling them to avoid liability in case the resident is still there.
If the carrier feels a person may still be there, then it's not supposed to
be MLNF. Obviously the carrier is not avoiding responsibility by sending it
to CFS, because CFS can only do a MLNF on it if the carrier has sent up a
MLNF card. Hold the mail for 10 days. Ask the customer....then proceed
with the MLNF.
>
>If they are sent to CFS, the carrier doesn't initial them in the first
place,
>so how can he be blamed for a mistake like that? It's CFS's fault!
Read above!
>
>>If I do MNOs, I make sure I leave a notice in the box and then hold the
mail
>>for at least 10 days as required just in case someone IS there.
>
>Acronym overload! What is MNO?
Moved Left No Order...better known as MLNF.
Class dismissed!
Dee (which is not an acronym)
Dee
Roger Galliett wrote in message <35b80f3c...@nntp.alaska.net>...
>>Could you all please explain what you are talking about. All of our
>>undeliverable mail is put in different holdouts in the throwback case.
>>The nixie clerk has to keep them separate when they pull the case. MLNA
>>is sent to CFS for handling so we don't even have a stamp that says
>>that.
>>
>>It sounds like you all are talking about a central location for this. Is
>>it different in and AO.
>
>
>M-41. There's a slot for FORWARD EXPIRED mail, one for INSUFFICIENT
>ADDRESS and one for most of the others. THEORETICALLY we aren't even
>supposed to be using FORWARD EXPIRED anymore. D'oh!
>
>The older rubber stamps used to have FORWARD EXPIRED on them. The new
>rubber stamps don't. You can also get sticker-type labels which have
>various endorsements. The newer ones don't have FORWARD EXPIRED. The
>new rubber stamps have MOVED, LEFT NO ADDRESS but don't have NO SUCH #
>on them. Is that dumb, or what?
>
>develop a very clear and logical policy for return endorsements. I'm
>not holding my breath.
>
>CFS. However, many carriers will simply stamp them and conveniently
>avoid initialling them to avoid liability in case the resident is
>still there.
>
>the mail for at least 10 days as required just in case someone IS
>that happened to a friend of mine who works 2 weeks on/2 weeks off on
>the North Slope. She came home to find her mailbox empty so she called
>me. Conveniently, I worked at the case across the aisle from her
>her mail to CFS. Luckily, it was caught at CFS in the nick of time.
>Had she not known me, she probably would have had 2 weeks of mail
>returned to sender.
Always remember the old saying about ASSUME. Remember it and save your tush
some day.
Dee
Adam H. Kerman
Dee <ddwe...@cybercomm.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote in message <6paca7$neq$1...@chinet.chinet.com>...
>>In article <35b80f3c...@nntp.alaska.net>,
>>Roger Galliett <rog...@alaska.net> wrote:
>>>We have a throwback case that is more-or-less as called for in the
>>>M-41. There's a slot for FORWARD EXPIRED mail, one for INSUFFICIENT
>>>ADDRESS and one for most of the others. THEORETICALLY we aren't even
>>>supposed to be using FORWARD EXPIRED anymore. D'oh!
>>>The older rubber stamps used to have FORWARD EXPIRED on them. The new
>>>rubber stamps don't. You can also get sticker-type labels which have
>>>various endorsements. The newer ones don't have FORWARD EXPIRED. The
>>>new rubber stamps have MOVED, LEFT NO ADDRESS but don't have NO SUCH #
>>>on them. Is that dumb, or what?
>>FOE MUST BE sent to CFS. That's why you don't have a rubber stamp for it. We
>>had a discussion about this a couple of months ago. You aren't supposed to
>>group everything together that's sent to CFS. But, I don't understand why
>>FOEs couldn't be grouped with the regular forwards. CFS should be able to
>>recognize whether or not the Change of Address has expired and apply the
>>correct yellow label to it. The mailer is entitled to know the change of
>>address even if the piece can't be forwarded.
>
>CFS doesn't do FOE's. That's in-house. They only do MLNF and good forwards.
>>After 18 months, you aren't supposed to send it to CFS, but stamp it "Not
>>Deliverable as Addressed--Unable to Forward". This one is a catch-all.
>No, it isn't a catch-all. It's just for FOE's.
I get mail back FOE from 13 to 18 months after the Change of Address. This
mail came from CFS. My understanding is that after 18 months, the mail is not
sent to CFS but stamped Not Deliverable as Addressed--Unable to Forward.
I don't think you ever used FOE after 18 months in the days before CFS.
Adam H. Kerman
Roger Galliett <rog...@alaska.net> wrote:
>>After 18 months, you aren't supposed to send it to CFS, but stamp it "Not
>>Deliverable as Addressed--Unable to Forward". This one is a catch-all.
>Ok...explain to me how NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED-UNABLE TO FORWARD
>is more explanatory than FORWARD EXPIRED? Also, explain how writing
>out by hand "NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED-UNABLE TO FORWARD" is more
>efficient than using a rubber stamp to stamp "FORWARD EXPIRED". THE
>USPS is always complaining about efficiency... well let's see some!
All I know is what I observe from mail returned to me, and what it says in the
DMM. FOE now only appears on mail from CFS between months 13 and 18, to tell
me the new address.
My recollection of other endorsements was that FOE was used for a few months
after the year of forwarding.
I agree with you. I find "Not Deliverable as Addressed--Unable to Forward" to
be a wordy but useless endorsement. As someone who maintains a mailing list,
it would be a lot more useful to know that someone had moved from that
address. At least that tells me that the information I have is out of date.
"Not Deliverable as Addressed" tell me nothing useful.
Dee, I disagree with you. NDA is a catch-all: It replaced "No such person at
this address" which I always found much more useful.
>
>>>As for MOVED, LEFT NO ADDRESS, yes, we are SUPPOSED to send those to CFS.
>>>However, many carriers will simply stamp them and conveniently avoid
>>>initialling them to avoid liability in case the resident is still there.
>>If they are sent to CFS, the carrier doesn't initial them in the first place,
>>so how can he be blamed for a mistake like that? It's CFS's fault!
>I could well be wrong, but mail which is endorsed as undeliverable at
>my station is handled by the local clerks and not sent to CFS. Only
>mail which has a valid forward or MNO "moved no order" is sent to CFS.
What is God's name is the difference between "Moved No Order" and "Moved, Left
No Address"?
OK, I was wrong. If such an order were filed by the carrier, he'd still have to
initial it.
>Carriers sometimes do an end run around CFS by rubberstamping some MNOs
>instead of filling out the proper MNO entry form and sending the whole mess to
>CFS. It could be argued that if you only get one letter for the addressee, it
>might be cheaper to do it this way.
I've always been convinced that CFS is MORE expensive than handling all nixies
and forwards at the delivery unit. However, the ultimate purpose is so that
those of us who maintain mailing lists are notified of moves. You may only get
a few letters for that person because they've been purged from mailing lists.
In theory, it's cheaper for the post office if a letter that would be
Undeliverable as Addressed wasn't mailed in the first place.
Joanne_ Laferriere
marked does not leave (live) here. You hold it for ten days, put in
the MLNA and three weeks later, they want to know what`s happening to
their mail. Turns out, they want to REFUSE those pieces of mail.
There`s a big difference between "refused" and "MLNA". I had a form
made up asking the tenant of the home to verify that the person had
moved and they will no longer accept mail for that person. It covers our
butts and lets the customer know that in the future, mark the pieces
"refused".
Aloha, Jo
Roger Galliett
>Deliverable as Addressed--Unable to Forward". This one is a catch-all.
Ok...explain to me how NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED-UNABLE TO FORWARD
is more explanatory than FORWARD EXPIRED? Also, explain how writing
out by hand "NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED-UNABLE TO FORWARD" is more
efficient than using a rubber stamp to stamp "FORWARD EXPIRED". THE
USPS is always complaining about efficiency... well let's see some!
>There's an Undeliverable as Addressed endorsement: Attempted--Not Known. When
>is this used? For accountables?
That's on the new rubber stamps. I use that one for mail which was
attempted and the person at that address took it out of their box and
left it for the carrier because it didn't belong to them. Of course, I
check the forwarding records first.
>>As for MOVED, LEFT NO ADDRESS, yes, we are SUPPOSED to send those to CFS.
>>However, many carriers will simply stamp them and conveniently avoid
>>initialling them to avoid liability in case the resident is still there.
>
>If they are sent to CFS, the carrier doesn't initial them in the first place,
>so how can he be blamed for a mistake like that? It's CFS's fault!
I could well be wrong, but mail which is endorsed as undeliverable at
my station is handled by the local clerks and not sent to CFS. Only
mail which has a valid forward or MNO "moved no order" is sent to CFS.
Carriers sometimes do an end run around CFS by rubberstamping some
MNOs instead of filling out the proper MNO entry form and sending the
whole mess to CFS. It could be argued that if you only get one letter
for the addressee, it might be cheaper to do it this way. Course, the
hapless sub will probably get a pile of them on the regular carrier's
day off and won't know what to do with them since they aren't recorded
anywhere. Murphy's Law.
Roger Galliett
>allowed endorsements):
>
> Not deliverable as addressed unable to forward
> No Mail Receptacle
> Vacant
> Unclaimed
> Refused
> Attempted Addressee Unknown
> No Such Street
> Insufficient Address
> No Such Number
> No Such Office in State
Ok schmarty! What about DECEASED? Huh? Huh?
P.S. -- Beware, I may start to pick your brain if you keep posting
useful info!
Dee
Adam H. Kerman wrote in message <6pbl7k$7k$1...@chinet.chinet.com>...
>In article <6pbdsa$do4$1...@ostrich.cybercomm.net>,
>Dee <ddwe...@cybercomm.net> wrote:
>
>>Adam H. Kerman wrote in message <6paca7$neq$1...@chinet.chinet.com>...
>>>Roger Galliett <rog...@alaska.net> wrote:
>
>>>>We have a throwback case that is more-or-less as called for in the
>>>>M-41. There's a slot for FORWARD EXPIRED mail, one for INSUFFICIENT
>>>>ADDRESS and one for most of the others. THEORETICALLY we aren't even
>>>>supposed to be using FORWARD EXPIRED anymore. D'oh!
>
>>>>The older rubber stamps used to have FORWARD EXPIRED on them. The new
>>>>rubber stamps don't. You can also get sticker-type labels which have
>>>>various endorsements. The newer ones don't have FORWARD EXPIRED. The
>>>>new rubber stamps have MOVED, LEFT NO ADDRESS but don't have NO SUCH #
>>>>on them. Is that dumb, or what?
>
>>>FOE MUST BE sent to CFS. That's why you don't have a rubber stamp for it.
We
>>>had a discussion about this a couple of months ago. You aren't supposed
to
>>>group everything together that's sent to CFS. But, I don't understand why
>>>FOEs couldn't be grouped with the regular forwards. CFS should be able to
>>>recognize whether or not the Change of Address has expired and apply the
>>>correct yellow label to it. The mailer is entitled to know the change of
>>>address even if the piece can't be forwarded.
>>
>>CFS doesn't do FOE's. That's in-house. They only do MLNF and good
forwards.
>
>>>Deliverable as Addressed--Unable to Forward". This one is a catch-all.
>
>
>I get mail back FOE from 13 to 18 months after the Change of Address. This
>mail came from CFS. My understanding is that after 18 months, the mail is
not
>sent to CFS but stamped Not Deliverable as Addressed--Unable to Forward.
>
>I don't think you ever used FOE after 18 months in the days before CFS.
The FOE stamp was never recognized by the Postal Service. It was never
supposed to be used, but we used it anyway. The mail that is coming back
13-18 months after, is a glitch in the system. It is supposed to be going
back to the sender with the person's new address on it and telling the
sender the forward has expired. Now, just to really boggle your mind...the
reasoning behind not using the FOE stamp, is so the sender doesn't know this
is a FOE. And I know you are going to ask, well then why does CFS put FOE
on the yellow stickers. My answer...Duhhhhhhh!
Dee
Dee
Joanne_ Laferriere wrote in message
<23816-35...@newsd-111.bryant.webtv.net>...
Aloha, Jo
Best way to handle it. People don't want it, they should mark refused on
it. We are not mind readers.
Dee
Dee
Roger Galliett wrote in message <35b9693f...@nntp.alaska.net>...
Deceased is the handwritten one. Guess I shouldn't have left it off. Gads,
I didn't realize anyone really read this stuff.
Dee
Dee
Adam H. Kerman wrote in message <6pbo9l$q0$1...@chinet.chinet.com>...
>In article <35b928c9...@nntp.alaska.net>,
>Roger Galliett <rog...@alaska.net> wrote:
>>>After 18 months, you aren't supposed to send it to CFS, but stamp it "Not
>>>Deliverable as Addressed--Unable to Forward". This one is a catch-all.
>
>>is more explanatory than FORWARD EXPIRED? Also, explain how writing
>>out by hand "NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED-UNABLE TO FORWARD" is more
>>efficient than using a rubber stamp to stamp "FORWARD EXPIRED". THE
>>USPS is always complaining about efficiency... well let's see some!
>
the
>DMM. FOE now only appears on mail from CFS between months 13 and 18, to
tell
>me the new address.
>
>My recollection of other endorsements was that FOE was used for a few
months
>after the year of forwarding.
>
>I agree with you. I find "Not Deliverable as Addressed--Unable to Forward"
to
>be a wordy but useless endorsement. As someone who maintains a mailing
list,
>it would be a lot more useful to know that someone had moved from that
>address. At least that tells me that the information I have is out of date.
>
>"Not Deliverable as Addressed" tell me nothing useful.
That's why they want us to use it!
>
>Dee, I disagree with you. NDA is a catch-all: It replaced "No such person
at
>this address" which I always found much more useful.
"No such person at this address" is not a recognized endorsement. Attempted
Unknown is the one to use. At least you know they attempted delivery and
that the person isn't at that address.
>>
>>>>As for MOVED, LEFT NO ADDRESS, yes, we are SUPPOSED to send those to
CFS.
>>>>However, many carriers will simply stamp them and conveniently avoid
>>>>initialling them to avoid liability in case the resident is still there.
>
>>>If they are sent to CFS, the carrier doesn't initial them in the first
place,
>>>so how can he be blamed for a mistake like that? It's CFS's fault!
>
>>I could well be wrong, but mail which is endorsed as undeliverable at
>>my station is handled by the local clerks and not sent to CFS. Only
>>mail which has a valid forward or MNO "moved no order" is sent to CFS.
That is correct.
>
>What is God's name is the difference between "Moved No Order" and "Moved,
Left
>No Address"?
Nothing. Just that one is the official wording and one isn't. Don't you
just love all this? Thousands of dollars spent to say a "Rose is a Rose is
a Rose?"
>
>OK, I was wrong. If such an order were filed by the carrier, he'd still
have to
>initial it.
>
>>Carriers sometimes do an end run around CFS by rubberstamping some MNOs
>>instead of filling out the proper MNO entry form and sending the whole
mess to
>>CFS. It could be argued that if you only get one letter for the addressee,
it
>>might be cheaper to do it this way.
Of course it is...but it's not the "official" way. And, it doesn't require
a decision to be made by the carrier, which could end up being the wrong
one. Any sub would know by checking the route books, cards, or however the
records are kept what to do with the piece.
>
>I've always been convinced that CFS is MORE expensive than handling all
nixies
>and forwards at the delivery unit. However, the ultimate purpose is so that
>those of us who maintain mailing lists are notified of moves. You may only
get
>a few letters for that person because they've been purged from mailing
lists.
>
>In theory, it's cheaper for the post office if a letter that would be
>Undeliverable as Addressed wasn't mailed in the first place.
You have no idea how many letters I get back from mailers claiming the
address is good. It's their Aunt Bessie and they know that Aunt Bessie
lives there. I send the letter with a 3555 to the PM at that installation,
and guess what? Aunt Bessie hasn't lived there for years. Aunt Bessie is
deceased. Aunt Bessie lives in an apartment complex with 800 apartments. T
he carrier who know which one she had made sure Aunt Bessie got her letter.
The carrier has now retired and the new guy hasn't the foggiest idea who
Aunt Bessie is. And so it goes. Obviously, Adam, as you may have
gathered...I love my work. Hate my job, but I love my work. It is so
interesting.
Dee
Adam H. Kerman
Dee <ddwe...@cybercomm.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote in message <6pbo9l$q0$1...@chinet.chinet.com>...
>>Dee, I disagree with you. NDA is a catch-all: It replaced "No such person at
>>this address" which I always found much more useful.
>"No such person at this address" is not a recognized endorsement. Attempted
>Unknown is the one to use. At least you know they attempted delivery and
>that the person isn't at that address.
All right, I may not recall correctly. Was "Attempted--Not Known" previously
"No such person at this address"? The endorsements were rewritten ten years
ago. I remember seeing more informative endorsements previously.
>Obviously, Adam, as you may have gathered...I love my work. Hate my job, but I
>love my work. It is so interesting.
There's nothing wrong with postal work. I have no disagreements with clerks and
carriers who know what they are doing to be let alone and trusted to move the
mail to the best of their abilities.
I worked there for six months. Never have I seen an organization with so much
built in animosity. If it weren't a government agency it would surely be
bankrupt. However, had I not worked there myself, I wouldn't have believed
the stories you all tell. Surely rational people don't act like that.
Dee
Adam H. Kerman wrote in message <6pddmr$bnk$1...@chinet.chinet.com>...
I'll check out the old endorsements on Monday. I've only been doing markups
for about 8 years.
Postal stories are always hard to believe unless you've been there or live
with someone who's there. My mom and dad always said they wouldn't believe
it if anyone else but me had told them. Half the time the look in my face
and the slump of my body told the story. I was treated better in the
service...even in basic. At least that treatment made sense. This sure
doesn't.
Dee
Robert DeSavage
It's hard to remain rational when the majority of the postal workers are
doing their jobs to the best of their ability, only to be unfairly attacked
by the press and the uninformed public that we are lazy, non-productive,
violent dolts. After hearing this for thirty plus years, I really resent it,
because my conscience is clear after each and every work day. I have served
my carrier route customers well, and will continue doing so until I deliver
my last letter.
If it is the SYSTEM that is at fault, then blame the system and those who
make the policies of the system and not the peons!
El Lippo
Adam H. Kerman
Robert DeSavage <all...@tiac.net> wrote:
>If it is the SYSTEM that is at fault, then blame the system and those who
>make the policies of the system and not the peons!
I never blame systems for failure. While they may have been designed badly
or didn't take into account factors that couldn't have been anticipated,
there's no excuse for not changing things for the better.
Robert DeSavage
Adam H. Kerman wrote in message <6pe4qh$fg4$1...@chinet.chinet.com>...
I agree with you about systems. A system is the product of human thought.
However, when the 'guardians' of a system refuse to take heed of good advice
from those who work within it on a regular basis, then there's really a
problem. DPS, and the out and out refusal to allow the carriers to case it
is a prime example. There are no excuses for egos prevailing over
practicality, especially with a system that could be easily improved! There
is a tall brick wall surrounding DPS, and if there is no portal to allow
improvement, then there will be no improvement.
El Lippo