Reusing an unfranked stamp - technical question: illegality already assumed!

[NY]

If I receive a stamped letter letter and Royal Mail has inadvertently not
franked the stamp to cancel it, it is tempting to reuse that stamp on
another letter. I realise that this would be fraudulent and therefore
illegal.

But am I right that the barcode alongside every stamp is unique. Does this
mean that Royal Mail can check whether they have seen a stamp before and
therefore can confirm if it is being used illegally a second time? If so, do
they actually do so for every stamp on every letter? Or do they do random
sampling?

I ask because I've just received a letter with such a stamp. I've binned it,
despite the temptation to save £1.10 by reusing it. But it set me
wondering...

[Andrew]

In theory if you peel it off, there are two little oblong
windows that get torn off the stamp, preventing re-use.

Also, don't royal mail mark letters with invisible
markers as part of their automatic sorting systems,
which might identify a re-used stamp anyway ?.

[NY]

"Andrew" <Andr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:u0k344$3u9bs$3...@dont-email.me...

I suppose everything depends on whether a letter bypasses the marking
machine altogether and therefore escapes invisible (eg fluorescent dye)
marking as well as visible black-ink franking. And whether the sorting marks
happen to catch the stamp or to avoid it.

[alan_m]

On 05/04/2023 16:24, NY wrote:

> I suppose everything depends on whether a letter bypasses the marking
> machine altogether and therefore escapes invisible (eg fluorescent dye)
> marking as well as visible black-ink franking. And whether the sorting
> marks happen to catch the stamp or to avoid it.

I thought the fluorescent markings applied tho te envelope was more to
do with sorting and redirection rather than franking of the stamp.

As other have said there are oblong cut-outs on a stamp making it
difficult to peel off and re-apply. I have 20 first class stamps and can
see that the bar code is different on each (at least on the ones where a
10 second look the differences can be seen). I assume that they record
that they have gone through the system. They may still attempt to
deliver the letter but demand a fee beforehand, which may be more than
the postage.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

[Adrian Caspersz]

On 05/04/2023 15:56, NY wrote:

> If I receive a stamped letter letter and Royal Mail has inadvertently
> not franked the stamp to cancel it, it is tempting to reuse that stamp
> on another letter. I realise that this would be fraudulent and therefore
> illegal.
>
> But am I right that the barcode alongside every stamp is unique.

It is. I've got a very interesting free app 'Scandit' on an iPhone that
reads lots of different bar code formats.

Does
> this mean that Royal Mail can check whether they have seen a stamp
> before and therefore can confirm if it is being used illegally a second
> time? If so, do they actually do so for every stamp on every letter? Or
> do they do random sampling?

The post office is well used to adding surcharges for the receiver, of
non related amounts that will add up to a tidy profit over their
expenses. There is no reason for not issuing them all.

--
Adrian C

[Dave W]

Yes the code is different on every stamp. Whether they store all the
codes and block one that they've seen before, is another matter.
--
Dave W

[Bob Eager]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2023 23:15:04 +0100, Dave W wrote:

> Yes the code is different on every stamp. Whether they store all the
> codes and block one that they've seen before, is another matter.

It would be easy enough. You only need one bit per stamp.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

[alan_m]

On 06/04/2023 00:46, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2023 23:15:04 +0100, Dave W wrote:
>
>> Yes the code is different on every stamp. Whether they store all the
>> codes and block one that they've seen before, is another matter.
>
> It would be easy enough. You only need one bit per stamp.
>

Just get the felt tip out and add a random bit to the bar coding.

[Mark Carver]

On 05/04/2023 15:56, NY wrote:

I received a letter the other day, new barcode stamp, unfranked, and
someone had used a biro to stick a cross on it. Often seen that over the
years, don't know who does it, but I suspect the postie, so force of habit.

I 'repurposed'  a new barcoded stamp recently, it was on an envelope of
a birthday card we were about to send, but the recipient sadly passed
away. I just cut the stamp out of the envelope with a 5mm 'border', and
sellotaped it to another envelope, one that I was sending an expired
driving licence back to DVLC. I wouldn't have done that on anything more
personal, it's all rather 'freeloaderish' isn't it ?

(I threw away the birthday card (in the green bin, of course)) Could
have tipexed it, and reused I suppose

[Tim Streater]

On 06 Apr 2023 at 00:46:38 BST, "Bob Eager" <news...@eager.cx> wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Apr 2023 23:15:04 +0100, Dave W wrote:
>
>> Yes the code is different on every stamp. Whether they store all the
>> codes and block one that they've seen before, is another matter.
>
> It would be easy enough. You only need one bit per stamp.

Plus bits for the code, presumably.

--
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

[Bob Eager]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 07:54:21 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

> On 06 Apr 2023 at 00:46:38 BST, "Bob Eager" <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 05 Apr 2023 23:15:04 +0100, Dave W wrote:
>>
>>> Yes the code is different on every stamp. Whether they store all the
>>> codes and block one that they've seen before, is another matter.
>>
>> It would be easy enough. You only need one bit per stamp.
>
> Plus bits for the code, presumably.

No. Think about it.

[Owain Lastname]

On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 08:41:22 UTC+1, Mark Carver wrote:
> (I threw away the birthday card (in the green bin, of course)) Could
> have tipexed it, and reused I suppose

You can cut the front off the card and mount it on a new blank folded card for that 'handcrafted' look.

I've been recycling received birthday cards that way for years.

Regards

Owain

[NY]

"Mark Carver" <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:k97bct...@mid.individual.net...

> I 'repurposed' a new barcoded stamp recently, it was on an envelope of a
> birthday card we were about to send, but the recipient sadly passed away.
> I just cut the stamp out of the envelope with a 5mm 'border', and
> sellotaped it to another envelope, one that I was sending an expired
> driving licence back to DVLC. I wouldn't have done that on anything more
> personal, it's all rather 'freeloaderish' isn't it ?

There's nothing illegal or even immoral about taking an unused stamp off a
letter that hasn't been sent and using it on another one. I would hope that
Royal Mail wouldn't penalise people for doing that, and *would* be using the
barcode to confirm that the stamp hadn't been sent already. Modern stamps
are harder to get off an envelope than old "lickable" stamps because the
stamp can't be steamed or soaked off.

The other cost-saving thing I do is to send several birthday cards in one
envelope: my sister and two of my nephews were all born with about a week of
each other (different years, obviously!) so I put all the cards into a
single A5 envelope. It is better to pay for one large-letter stamp than for
three normal-letter stamps going to the same address. I once had a post
office clerk tell me off for doing it: I think she though that it was my
moral duty to send three separate letters and thus boost the Royal Mail's
profits a bit more!

[Brian Gaff]

In theory, if what you send can be seen as large print or a ram stick or
cassette, then you can post them free first class articles for the blind
mail. You can buy labels from RNIB, now whether the postman has to stand
there and test your eyes before delivery, is highly unlikely.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"NY" <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:u0m0c0$9ojd$1...@dont-email.me...

[Theo]

Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 07:54:21 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
>
> > On 06 Apr 2023 at 00:46:38 BST, "Bob Eager" <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 05 Apr 2023 23:15:04 +0100, Dave W wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes the code is different on every stamp. Whether they store all the
> >>> codes and block one that they've seen before, is another matter.
> >>
> >> It would be easy enough. You only need one bit per stamp.
> >
> > Plus bits for the code, presumably.
>
> No. Think about it.

I've thought about it. How were you planning to defeat the cryptographic
signature that's embedded in the datamatrix barcode?

(although it seems the barcode scanning equipment is not universal in RM's
sorting network, so you might get away with it if they aren't scanned.
Seems like the Chinese forgers are now producing fake datamatrix stamps...)

Theo

[Theo]

Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I received a letter the other day, new barcode stamp, unfranked, and
> someone had used a biro to stick a cross on it. Often seen that over the
> years, don't know who does it, but I suspect the postie, so force of habit.

They may have standing instructions to cancel unfranked stamps on their
round. Also, apparently not all barcoded stamps are getting scanned at the
moment.

> I 'repurposed'  a new barcoded stamp recently, it was on an envelope of
> a birthday card we were about to send, but the recipient sadly passed
> away. I just cut the stamp out of the envelope with a 5mm 'border', and
> sellotaped it to another envelope, one that I was sending an expired
> driving licence back to DVLC. I wouldn't have done that on anything more
> personal, it's all rather 'freeloaderish' isn't it ?

Not really, just you picked the wrong size envelope to begin with. I
wouldn't think anything of receiving a letter like that. At least the
recipient knows you weren't recycling a used stamp.

> (I threw away the birthday card (in the green bin, of course)) Could
> have tipexed it, and reused I suppose

Happy Birthday^WSympathy ?

Theo

[Andy Burns]

Theo wrote:

> Bob Eager wrote:
>
>> Tim Streater wrote:

>>
>>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave W wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes the code is different on every stamp. Whether they store all the
>>>>> codes and block one that they've seen before, is another matter.
>>>>
>>>> It would be easy enough. You only need one bit per stamp.
>>>
>>> Plus bits for the code, presumably.
>>
>> No. Think about it.
>
> I've thought about it. How were you planning to defeat the cryptographic
> signature that's embedded in the datamatrix barcode?

Presume each stamp starts with a unique incrementing serial number
before it gets mangled with hashes/checksums etc? just set the bit that
corresponds to the ID

You'd have to transfer the stampIDs between sorting centres, but then
just "OR" them into the usedstamps block of memory.

Each 1TB of memory would store 8 trillion used/not used flags, that's
1000 years worth of RM deliveries, and not all of those have stamps anyway.

[Bob Eager]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 10:26:03 +0100, Theo wrote:

> Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 07:54:21 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
>>
>> > On 06 Apr 2023 at 00:46:38 BST, "Bob Eager" <news...@eager.cx>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 05 Apr 2023 23:15:04 +0100, Dave W wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Yes the code is different on every stamp. Whether they store all
>> >>> the codes and block one that they've seen before, is another
>> >>> matter.
>> >>
>> >> It would be easy enough. You only need one bit per stamp.
>> >
>> > Plus bits for the code, presumably.
>>
>> No. Think about it.
>
> I've thought about it. How were you planning to defeat the
> cryptographic signature that's embedded in the datamatrix barcode?

I'm not. We were talking about the RM scanner, not a private one. And how
it records the stamps that have been used.

[Bob Eager]

Exactly. A very old technique.

[Theo]

Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 10:26:03 +0100, Theo wrote:
>
> > Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 07:54:21 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 06 Apr 2023 at 00:46:38 BST, "Bob Eager" <news...@eager.cx>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 05 Apr 2023 23:15:04 +0100, Dave W wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Yes the code is different on every stamp. Whether they store all
> >> >>> the codes and block one that they've seen before, is another
> >> >>> matter.
> >> >>
> >> >> It would be easy enough. You only need one bit per stamp.
> >> >
> >> > Plus bits for the code, presumably.
> >>
> >> No. Think about it.
> >
> > I've thought about it. How were you planning to defeat the
> > cryptographic signature that's embedded in the datamatrix barcode?
>
> I'm not. We were talking about the RM scanner, not a private one. And how
> it records the stamps that have been used.

Ah, sorry - you were talking about RM keeping track of which stamps had been
seen using a bitfield. The person who suggested editing the barcode was a
different subthread. The crypto is why editing the barcode doesn't work,
and the server-side bitfield protects against reuse or duplication.

Seemingly they can tell which sheet the stamps came from:
https://blog.norphil.co.uk/2021/03/barcode-added-to-2nd-class-business.html

Theo

[Peter Johnson]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 08:41:18 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:


>
>I received a letter the other day, new barcode stamp, unfranked, and
>someone had used a biro to stick a cross on it. Often seen that over the
>years, don't know who does it, but I suspect the postie, so force of habit.

The 'someone' will have been working in the sorting office. Going back
a few years, I rarely received mail with biro cancelled stamps, then
the number increased considerably. I guessed that instructions had
been issued for unfranked stamps to be biro cancelled when someone at
RM HQ realised that unfranked stamps were being recycled but in my
experience a few still escape being cancelled. I've had deliveries
with stamps franked normally, biro franked and unfranked.

I heard that Ronsol lighter fluid will release the adhesive used on
postage stamps without affecting the cutouts. I also heard of a few
barcode stamps being recycled and going through the system without any
issues.

[Dave W]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 08:00:29 +0100, alan_m <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 06/04/2023 00:46, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Apr 2023 23:15:04 +0100, Dave W wrote:
>>
>>> Yes the code is different on every stamp. Whether they store all the
>>> codes and block one that they've seen before, is another matter.
>>
>> It would be easy enough. You only need one bit per stamp.
>>
>
>Just get the felt tip out and add a random bit to the bar coding.

That's not something you can "just" do. The pixels in the code are
very small and you would have to add or subtract others to give a
valid checksum. Even if you succeeded, sods law might mean your new
number has already been used.
--
Dave W

[Dave W]

On 06 Apr 2023 16:01:45 +0100 (BST), Theo

<theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:

>> On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 10:26:03 , Theo wrote:
>>
>> > Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:

>> >> On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 07:54:21 , Tim Streater wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 06 Apr 2023 at 00:46:38 BST, "Bob Eager" <news...@eager.cx>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Wed, 05 Apr 2023 23:15:04 , Dave W wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Yes the code is different on every stamp. Whether they store all
>> >> >>> the codes and block one that they've seen before, is another
>> >> >>> matter.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It would be easy enough. You only need one bit per stamp.
>> >> >
>> >> > Plus bits for the code, presumably.
>> >>
>> >> No. Think about it.
>> >
>> > I've thought about it. How were you planning to defeat the
>> > cryptographic signature that's embedded in the datamatrix barcode?
>>
>> I'm not. We were talking about the RM scanner, not a private one. And how
>> it records the stamps that have been used.
>
>Ah, sorry - you were talking about RM keeping track of which stamps had been
>seen using a bitfield. The person who suggested editing the barcode was a
>different subthread. The crypto is why editing the barcode doesn't work,
>and the server-side bitfield protects against reuse or duplication.
>
>Seemingly they can tell which sheet the stamps came from:
>https://blog.norphil.co.uk/2021/03/barcode-added-to-2nd-class-business.html
>
>Theo

Notice the enormous 16-hex-digit checksum, which would need at least
64 pixels, making any attempts at forgery not worth the effort.
--
Dave W

[alan_m]

On 06/04/2023 19:28, Dave W wrote:

> Notice the enormous 16-hex-digit checksum, which would need at least
> 64 pixels, making any attempts at forgery not worth the effort.

The forgers would not be too concerned that the stamps don't pass
inspection. They would only be interested in the money they make from
people willing to buy fake stamps.

[Theo]

alan_m <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> The forgers would not be too concerned that the stamps don't pass
> inspection. They would only be interested in the money they make from
> people willing to buy fake stamps.

It would nice if RM had a website where you could scan a stamp to check if
it's genuine. Currently they just play you a video of Shaun the Sheep,
which is not quite the same...

(OTOH I suspect they don't want to encourage the secondary market in stamps,
so maybe just disparaging third party sources is more in their interest)

Theo

[Colin Bignell]

Presumably the effect would be to stop the bar code being read properly.
They may not bother about the occasional failed read, as they probably
expect a few anyway.

--
Colin Bignell

[Ian Jackson]

In message <rint2itfmova65j9q...@4ax.com>, Peter Johnson
<pe...@parksidewood.nospam> writes

>
>I heard that Ronsol lighter fluid will release the adhesive used on
>postage stamps without affecting the cutouts.

I think that one of the 'official' possible uses of WD40 is the removal
of sticky labels. However, you would have to wait some time for the
oiliness to dissipate before you are able to re-stick postage stamps.
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

[Dave ban]

[Dave ban]

On Friday, 7 April 2023 at 11:00:49 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:

> In message <rint2itfmova65j9q...@4ax.com>, Peter Johnson
> <pe...@parksidewood.nospam> writes

> > I tried an experiment and posted an envelope to myself with a reused but unfranked barcoded stamp and the envelope arrived a couple of days later with no problem!

[Brian Gaff]

How old you know? I was told some time ago that some kind of uv reflecting
stuff is sprayed over franked stamps and of course you would need a uv lamp
to see it, probably similar to those pens you can buy to mark your goods.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk

Blind user, so no pictures please!

This document should only be read by those persons for whom Paranoia is
normal
and its contents are probably boring and confusing. If you receive this
e-Mail
message in error, do not notify the sender immediately, instead, print it
out and make
paper animals out of it. As the rest of this disclaimer is totally
incomprehensible, we have not bothered to attach it.
"Dave ban" <dave...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:7281d04e-c8a6-463b...@googlegroups.com...

[Michael Quick]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 3:56:26 PM UTC+1, NY wrote:
> If I receive a stamped letter letter and Royal Mail has inadvertently not
> franked the stamp to cancel it, it is tempting to reuse that stamp on
> another letter. I realise that this would be fraudulent and therefore
> illegal.
>
> But am I right that the barcode alongside every stamp is unique. Does this
> mean that Royal Mail can check whether they have seen a stamp before and
> therefore can confirm if it is being used illegally a second time? If so, do
> they actually do so for every stamp on every letter? Or do they do random
> sampling?
>
> I ask because I've just received a letter with such a stamp. I've binned it,
> despite the temptation to save £1.10 by reusing it. But it set me
> wondering...

The next time you get an franked barcode stamp peel it off with steam then post it to yourself and see what happens.
Or you could reseal the envelope with stamp intact and pop it in a post and see if it gets re delivered back to you.

[Davey]

Last year, I had to pay £2.50 to get an envelope released, as it had
'failed read' marked on it. I took it back to the Post Office to ask
what the problem was, they re-scanned it, and confirmed that, according
to them, it was a fake barcoded stamp, it failed the computerised
scanner check. They could not/would not give me any more information.
--
Davey.

[Bob Henson]

At the totally outrageous prices now charged for letter post, it was only a
matter of time before the forgers started on stamps. They're worth more
than £1 coins and easier to forge, I would have thought.

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, England

How do you get down from an elephants back? You don't, it comes from a
duck.

[Theo]

Bob Henson <bob.h...@outlook.com> wrote:
> At the totally outrageous prices now charged for letter post, it was only a
> matter of time before the forgers started on stamps. They're worth more
> than £1 coins and easier to forge, I would have thought.

You used to be able to buy sheets of 'new' 100 stamps on Aliexpress for
cheap, shipped from China. Somebody over there must have had a nice little
forging operation going on...

Perhaps they'll switch their printing presses to picture stamps that are
still accepted, and we'll see an influx of 7.5p Christmas stamps from 1973.

Theo

[Owain Lastname]

On Saturday, 18 November 2023 at 12:00:17 UTC, Theo wrote:
> Perhaps they'll switch their printing presses to picture stamps that are
> still accepted, and we'll see an influx of 7.5p Christmas stamps from 1973.

10 of those needed for second class now.

I wonder if 'stamps continue on other side' is a valid instruction to write on an envelope.

Owain

[Davey]

AI might be needed to understand that instruction.


--
Davey.

[Peter Johnson]

You don't have to write anything. Stamps on the back of an envelope
because there's insufficient space on the front are still valid.

[Robin]

Royal Mail set the T&Cs for mail in the United Kingdom Post Scheme made
under the Postal Services Act. It includes:

"10.2 Postage marks must be applied to the top right hand corner of the
envelope or cover of the item unless we specify otherwise. If the item
is spherical or without corners the postage mark should be placed above
and to the right of the address."

There "postage marks" is defined in 10.1 as "postage stamps, postage
labels, service fee labels, franking marks, postage labels created by
online applications , Printed Postage Impressions (PPIs) etc"

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[SteveW]

On 18/11/2023 17:55, Robin wrote:
> On 18/11/2023 15:02, Peter Johnson wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 04:51:57 -0800 (PST), Owain Lastname
>> <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, 18 November 2023 at 12:00:17 UTC, Theo wrote:
>>>> Perhaps they'll switch their printing presses to picture stamps that
>>>> are
>>>> still accepted, and we'll see an influx of 7.5p Christmas stamps
>>>> from 1973.
>>>
>>> 10 of those needed for second class now.
>>>
>>> I wonder if 'stamps continue on other side' is a valid instruction to
>>> write on an envelope.
>>>
>> You don't have to write anything. Stamps on the back of an envelope
>> because there's insufficient space on the front are still valid.
>
> Royal Mail set the T&Cs for mail in the United Kingdom Post Scheme made
> under the Postal Services Act.  It includes:
>
> "10.2 Postage marks must be applied to the top right hand corner of the
> envelope or cover of the item unless we specify otherwise. If the item
> is spherical or without corners the postage mark should be placed above
> and to the right of the address."

That doesn't say how far a row of stamps may extend to the left though
or if, on reaching the left-had edge, you can continue "around the
corner" to the back.

[Max Demian]

On 18/11/2023 17:55, Robin wrote:

> On 18/11/2023 15:02, Peter Johnson wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 04:51:57 -0800 (PST), Owain Lastname
>> <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 18 November 2023 at 12:00:17 UTC, Theo wrote:

>>>> Perhaps they'll switch their printing presses to picture stamps that
>>>> are
>>>> still accepted, and we'll see an influx of 7.5p Christmas stamps
>>>> from 1973.
>>>
>>> 10 of those needed for second class now.
>>>
>>> I wonder if 'stamps continue on other side' is a valid instruction to
>>> write on an envelope.
>>>
>> You don't have to write anything. Stamps on the back of an envelope
>> because there's insufficient space on the front are still valid.
>
> Royal Mail set the T&Cs for mail in the United Kingdom Post Scheme made
> under the Postal Services Act.  It includes:
>
> "10.2 Postage marks must be applied to the top right hand corner of the
> envelope or cover of the item unless we specify otherwise. If the item
> is spherical or without corners the postage mark should be placed above
> and to the right of the address."

I sent a spherical object through the post many years ago. It was a ping
pong ball. It arrived in double quick time; and had a cancellation mark
on the stamp.

--
Max Demian