Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
> On 24 Oct 2006, at 18:27, W B Hacker wrote:
>
>>
>> That is a cop-out.
>>
>> No 'national' snail-mail postal service, nor private courier will, or
>> would
>> allow themselves to be forced to - carry hazardous, offensive - or
>> merely
>> 'non-compliant' packages, properly 'addressed' or not.
>>
>> They are *required* to reject such, and the recipients generally
>> expect them to
>> do so.
>
>
> Actually, that's not true. You aren't allowed to post illegal or
> hazardous material, but the UK's Royal Mail doesn't make judgements
> about offensive material,
Sorry- shoudl have been more specific - not 'offensive; in the sense of pictures
or politics, 'offensive' in the sense of being smeared in cow-dung, limberger
cheese in a paper envelope - that sort of 'offensive'. IOW - distrubing,
distracting, perhaps hazardous to health of those who must handle it, etc. when
passing thru the handling process.
> and *anything* non-hazardous with a recipient
> name on it is required to be delivered.
> <http://www.royalmail.com:80/portal/rm/content1?
> catId=400044&mediaId=400255>
>
Royal Mail in particular, and UK Civil Seervice (most of whom *are*'civil') in
general, are known for being more helpful than, for example, their US counterparts.
>
> There are recommendations for packaging, but no requirements. <http://
> www.royalmail.com:80/portal/rm/content1?catId=400044&mediaId=400251>
> Even without a proper address, or with an incorrect address the royal
> mail is required to make best efforts to deliver. For example, lots of
> post is delivered to well known names (like BBC or Santa) even when
> there's no proper address given. The Royal Mail will open envelopes or
> consult telephone directories to find an address, if necessary.
>
> The delivery might be dependant on making up any shortfall in postage
> paid.
>
> None of that means that the same rules should apply to email, though.
Well - the gist of it is that *some* rules and *some* concern for the 'health
and safety' of the community are certainly appropriate.
Not to forget the many years that not only GPO, but essentially every business
in London had 'special ways' of handling mail and machines to sniff for the odd
unwanted surprise.
'Freedom to speak', BTW does not equate to 'right to force others to listen'.
Nor does 'willingness to accept' equate to a right to force others to carry
whatever it is one is willing to accept if/as/when so doing violates other
appropriate rules, terms, conditions or could place the server and/or other
clients at undue risk.
Bill
