On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 10:38:43 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 05:27:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, 14 September 2018 13:12:10 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 4:00:07 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> >> > On 2018-09-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 5:33:48 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> >> > >> On Thursday, 13 September 2018 22:18:04 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > >> > Really?? Are cartavorous, or chartiphagous, gastropods really so common that
> >> > >> > it made sense to have a rubber-stamp made up to cover the exigency?
> >> > >> Would seem reasonable. They manage to get into my kitchen often enough
> >> > >> and that involves a twenty foot climb up the main water pipe followed by an
> >> > >> intricate weaving around the back of a cupboard and up the side of my
> >> > >> fridge. I have no difficulty in believing that they are frequent visitors to the
> >> > >> much more accessible postboxes, esp[ecially when they're set in a nice
> >> > >> damp stone wall ..
> >> > >> <http://www.freeimageslive.co.uk/files/images002/uk_post_box_P4708.JPG>
> >> > >> or foliage ...
> >> > >> <https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e0/7f/c2/e07fc213f681fb5840b49089d59530e7.jpg>
> >> > > I have never heard of snail infestation anywhere before.
> >> >
> >> > I hadn't heard of this as a postal problem until now, but here's a
> >> > newspaper article from 2001 about it.
> >> >
> >> > "Lurking inside the postbox: snail mail"
> >> >
> >> > <https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/nov/10/johnvidal>
> >> two months after the item in question
> >> "The draught excluder solution has had one drawback, however. Installing
> >> them has cut off a source of income to the Post Office and its parent
> >> company, Consignia. "We used to put the [damaged] envelopes in a plastic
> >> bag and then surcharge the addressee," said Mark Lunnen, the Devon
> >> collections planning manager."
> >> What?? The Royal Mail charged customers for damage to mail that they were
> >> responsible for???
> >But they weren't responsible for it. They didn't own the snails. And had people
> >observed collection times and not left letters in the box overnight it wouldn't
> >have happened. It's not a bleedin' charity they're running!
> There's something wrong there. If envelopes were left overnight in
> the addressee's mailbox, and snail damage occurred, the postie
> wouldn't notice the damage or bag the envelope. It's not logical to
> think that he would go through the mail left earlier and check for
> damage. He, or she, is certainly not going to carry a rubber stamp
> along on his route.
I _hope_ that was intended as a "joke." There is no hint, anywhere, either
in the original story or in Maddie's comment, that the snails were in any
individual's mailbox (which, you might recall, though I suppose you don't,
they don't call a "mailbox" but something involving the slot that the
letters are pushed through to fall either onto the floor or into a
container intended for the purpose). They were in the postboxes in which
letters are deposited for the Royal Mail to pick up on a set schedule,
and Maddie's advice was to only mail letters shortly before the scheduled
> For the envelope to be noticed and bagged, it would have to be prior
> to delivery. The snail damage would be either at the sender's end or
> in a Royal Mail post box.
> The Royal Mail was charging the wrong party, but that's government for