Re: When do charitys give up?

Howard Wilson II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Kamens) wrote in
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 
>
>> Howard Wilson II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>Of course it works.  The mail isn't sent back to them, but the 
>>>person/company that sent the mail is notified that it could not be 
>>>delivered, and why.
>> 
>> I would be interested to hear what evidence you have to support this
>> claim.  I know of no mechanism, short of returned mail, used by the
>> postal service to notify mail senders of undelivered mail.  And I
>> believe that the previous poster is correct that bulk-rate mail is
>> *not* returned to its sender when it is rejected for whatever reason by
>> the recipient.
>
>The USPS is my evidence.

The existence of the USPS is not evidence of the mechanism you
claim exists for notifying senders of undelivered mail.

I searched the USPS Web site extensively.  There is no
evidence on the site that such a mechanism exists.  I also
just called my local post office and asked the delivery
supervisor.  He confirmed that rejected bulk-rate mail is not
returned to the sender and there is NO mechanism for notifying
the sender that the mail was rejected.  The ONLY mechanism the
postal service has for notifying senders about rejected mail
is returning to sender, and bulk-rate mail is never returned
to sender.

In short, both the USPS Web site and my local delivery
supervisor confirm that you're wrong -- rejecting bulk-rate
mail in no way causes the sender to be notified that the mail
was rejected.

>>>You can even call the local post office and let them know, they will 
>>>add the name to a list and once it is verified, this information is
>>>shared with mass marketers.
>> 
>> Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?  The only list I know
>
>Do you have a local post office?  If not, there's always the webpage. 

I also asked the local delivery supervisor if the USPS
maintains any sort of list like the one you're claiming they
maintain.  He confirmed that they do not; the only such list
is the one maintained by the DMA, which is a completely
separate entity from the USPS (and which, as I've explained in
another posting, os of dubious utility when it comes to
solicitations from charities).

Your repeated assertion of things that are not true, coupled
with insulting someone who politely asked you to produce
evidence of your claims, proves that you are not worth
discussing anything with, so *plonk*.