One person's war on junk mail (1996) | Hacker News Reader

One person's war on junk mail (1996)

langston.com

80 points_wldu89 comments

If I weighed the total amount of unsolicited bulk physical mail I got each year, it'd be several hundred pounds. I can't think of the amount of diesel fuel used to cut the trees down, chop up the pulp, make the paper, deliver the paper, print the paper, deliver the paper to my mailbox, then haul the trash away to dump. I'm 100% for massive postage increases on non-parcels, or complete elimination of this practice otherwise.

It is easier to me to imagine the waste involved; I live in a high rise. There's a large trash bin in the middle of the mail room that's empty at the beginning of the day and full at the end.

90% of the USPS' job is to transmit dead trees to our waste facilities.

But think of all the jobs and money involved in moving those trees.

How does the energy usage compare to digital advertising and cloud computing?

One starts to wonder should we just make advertising illegal. As it seems, it is waste in both paper form and as online adds with all the tracking involved...

what's the line between advertising and protected speech?

trick question: there is no line.

Billboards aren't banned in your state?

https://movia.media/moving-billboard-blog/why-is-billboard-a...

The supreme court, unanimously, in Rowan v United States Post Office Department, "categorically reject[ed] the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another."

"Consequently, a mailer’s right to communicate ceased at the mailbox of an unwilling addressee."

I would be very suprised if SCOTUS would agree this ruling supports any legislative attempt to preemptively block "communication".

"jobs" and "money" don't do anything for society. Junk mail is a drain on resources that doesn't produce anything useful. If the problem is that too many people are unemployed and there aren't enough jobs to go around, that shouldn't be an excuse to not put an end to an incredibly wasteful and annoying practice.

I think SilverRed was being sarcastic.

Oops.

Junk mail is "useful" because it distributes information.

It's much less effective than, say, books, because there's a lot of overhead and waste in sending junk mail to people who don't care for them.

Beyond that, it also subsidizes other mail deliveries. If mail wasn't being delivered to every address, having someone drop off a parcel just for you would be much more expensive.

> Beyond that, it also subsidizes other mail deliveries. If mail wasn't being delivered to every address, having someone drop off a parcel just for you would be much more expensive.

This is a political decision which indicts the political regime the USPS operates under.

Do you mean the American political system in general?

Not entirely, just the part that refuses to fund the USPS directly.

I'm not trying to say otherwise. I'm more pointing out that solving this problem will be hard because a lot of people depend on creating the problem.

Junk mail is vital for the USPS finances. It's over 20% of their income, ~$16 billion/yr.

It's a shame. Anthing I get in the mail that's not a first-class letter addressed to me by name goes into the trash unopened. But without the will to significantly downsize and reorganize the USPS it is a necessary revenue stream.

https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2019/1114-...

> Junk mail is vital for the USPS finances. It's over 20% of their income, ~$16 billion/yr.

I wonder how time and money processing and delivering that junk mail cost them. They could forgo that $16B and have more time to provide better service for non-junk mail.

Support postal banking and postal identify proofing services, both of which would generate revenue that could replace suboptimal activities such as junk mail.

Except, of course, that the USPS is categorically not a business, and no fundamental barrier exists to direct funding from the federal government, as with many other federal services. It has historically been expected to self-finance, and doing so may appeal to some sense of prudence, but that does not need to be the case if the externalities of doing so exceeds the income generated.

I can be running around my block waving at people. Someone may be paying me $16bn per year to do this.

The fact that this is a "$16bn effort" doesn't make it useful.

Also consider that if this is a "$16bn effort" the loss is multiple of that. Think of the advertisers (and their clients money), the effort to discard/recycle this garbage etc.

The loss for humanity is greater than $16bn.

Is this 'type of business' is to be eliminated, then USPS will drop the respective fraction of their use-less resources (staff, trucks, sorting machines, etc.).

I have no idea what this means. Are you suggesting the delivery of paper mail in the US is an idea whose time has passed? There are both generations of people who would disagree with you and people in different circumstances that would as well.

Given that they mention "$16bn" repeatedly, it seems pretty clear to me that their comments are regarding marketing mail specifically, not the full set of services USPS provides.

I feel quite comfortable saying that there has been zero value to myself, or any other human, in delivering marketing mail to my home. I never look at it, I never read it, it just goes straight into my recycling as soon as I identify that a letter I've received is not from someone I have a legitimate personal or business relationship with. I have never made any purchase as a result of receiving an advertisement delivered to my home by USPS.

I think there's still a need for it, but it seems to me that if I got paper mail once a week that would be good enough (senders can still opt for "express" service for anything really time-sensitive). Most bills sent by mail have ~30 day payment due date, so getting them once a week would still be more than adequate. You could cut delivery staff and vehicle needs by close to 4/5 this way (keeping some capacity for the express letters).

The mail was delivered twice a day in most places until April 1950 when cuts made this impossible.

This is to say-- there have been changes made to the delivery frequency historically and there will be again most likely.

I like the USPS, but there is something odd about taking a piece of mail and dumping it directly into the shredder. You'd be surprised how many junk-mails contain a thick plastic card that can't be shredded-- I assume its to force you to open it.

It has gotten to the point with all of my communication technologies-- I dread phone calls, I dread text and instant messages. I dread mail of any type-- it's always bad news.

I believe that the focus/point made of a 'parent' was about bulk (spam) paper advertisements arriving at our homes, not ALL snail mail.

Perhaps I should have clearly stated it in my message.

You are making the incorrect assumption that the remaining services would as profitable. The point is this $16b subsidises unprofitable (but expected) services which USPS offers. If they can’t depend on this income source, the subsidy needs to come from somewhere else (I.e. federal budget).

The question then is:

1. If the money did come from the federal budget.

2. And the practice was stopped

-> Would society benefit by MORE than the money spent?

People also forget that the postal system was created explicitly by the constitution. In that sense it's a more authentic government institution than even the federal reserve which came later. The spirit in which it was created and the discussions surrounding it at the time also make it clear that the framers would be appaled by attacks on both the postal system and net neutrality that have become commonplace.

Forcing a public institution to be self-supporting is a classic strategy to destroy that institution. To funnel tax money away from public transit, just cripple the system by raising fares in the name of profitability while giving tax breaks to automakers. To kill the postal system, set it up to fail with malicious metrics, and make sure companies like Amazon don't have to pay for the externalities they create.

Just as a road is more valuable than the tolls it generates, uniformly accessible secure communication is a general force multiplier for any country. If some people have to pay more than others for the same service, much of that advantage is lost.

> People also forget that the postal system was created explicitly by the constitution.

No—the constitution authorizes Congress “to establish post offices and post roads”. It does not obligate them to do so any more than it obligates them to declare war or hire pirates, to name two other clauses of the exact same section.

I believe you read the pirate bit wrong

> To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

No, right below that: "[congress shall have the power] to declare War, *grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal*, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; "

Ah, fair enough. Technically, a privateer is not a pirate... but I'll grant that's only a technical distinction.

Privateers are a type of pirate, and pirates would sometimes alternate between privateering and freelance piracy based on what was more lucrative at the time.

Interestingly, both the postal clause and and letters of marque are hold-overs from the (very few) powers granted by the articles of confederation. Without the power to tax or impose tariffs, I wonder to what degree the postal monopoly was seen as a revenue generating measure.

This is entirely the USPS exploiting their statutory monopoly.

There is no other communications medium that the typical customer would accept that much junk from. If I got that much junk email, I would switch email providers and use one with a better spam filter. When I started getting robocalls, I set my phone to stop accepting calls from unknown numbers. If I got enough junk DM’s on a social media site, I would delete my account. But I can’t opt out of USPS. We are a captive audience delivered to scummy advertisers by our own government.

I wonder what the lost efficiency is on each tree --> junk mail when it gets burned. I know pulp/papermaking has combustable byproducts, but I don't know how much is "lost": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraft_process#Byproducts_and_e...

I save most of mine up for the cabin, but it may or may not lead to a lot of extra chimney sweeping.

I've opted out of most junk mail. There are a few places that do not honor that request. If its addressed to you the USPS will deliver it.

My biggest issue since opting out of most things is that the postal carrier will still deliver the grocery coupons, coupon packages addressed to a different address. I've complained so many times, USPS just stuffs them in and doesn't care.

One thing you cannot opt out of is Every Door Delivery Mail from USPS. USPS allows advertisers, typically local folks, to buy delivery to an entire route and not be required to individually address the mail items.

Care sharing how exactly did you opt out?

Mails addressed at "resident at ..." drive me crazy.

Just wondered the same and found this: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0262-stopping-unsolici...

And I found about this http://www.dmaconsumers.org/offmailinglist.html

This took care of a lot of it: https://www.dmachoice.org

I think this one is for the grocery coupons: https://www.valassis.com/opt-out/

I had to make a lot of phone calls and ask to be taken off the list.

Being overrun with junk mail addressed to the previous 2 tenants, can one opt out for others no longer on the address? It seems none of the credit agencies figured these folks no longer live here.

USPS said they couldn’t do anything for Standard mail.

They just don't care enough to fix their mailing lists. The dead receive a lot of mail.

I've never tried to do an opt-out for someone else. A few places like dmachoice.org have web forms but I made a lot of phone calls.

There are a couple of local advertisers that are going to send their stuff no matter what I think. I do still get a small amount of junk.

You could try crossing through the address, writing 'no longer at this address, return to sender' on it and dropping it in the out-going mail.

I've been writing "Return to sender, recipient no longer lives at address" on those pieces of mail and re-depositing them in the mailbox. I've been getting less and less of the previous tenants' mail. I think I usually only get one piece a week now.

I do this too, sometimes I put it in a drop box so as to not piss off my carrier. It works eventually.

Can I opt out for someone else? I've owned my house for 11 years after buying it at an estate auction and I still receive mail addressed to the prior (deceased) occupant. It's ridiculous.

When I signed up here -> https://www.dmachoice.org, it gave me the option for other names at my address. For $2, it might be worth trying. There is even a "register the deceased" link.

Thanks. I did this, we'll see if it works. It's one thing to get junk mail for me, it's another thing to still be receiving credit card offers for a dead man. It makes me wonder how much of the annual credit card fraud is due to things like this and how often deceased person's identities are stolen for fraudulent purposes.

In my experience, even after you opt-out it takes months for the changes to actually happen.

Just print terms and conditions on your mailbox how it's allowed to be used and what is allowed to be put inside. By using your box the company accepts the the terms of course :)

A decade ago I was getting junk mail from citibank. They were offering loans. It was just on the news how these loans were very expensive, basically bankrupting people and hoping social security would pick up the tab.

It contains a reply enveloppe, so I put all their junk in there, write 'stop sending me junk' on it, and drop it in the postal box. Basically, anything costing them money is fine. Next week, same junk, same reply.

Then I start putting all kindd of other junk mail in the enveloppe. They wont give up.

We're rebuilding the house, so I fill a box with stone dirt, tape the reply enveloppe on top, and send it back. They actually phone me with a complaint, and demand I stop it. I politely decline, ask how they see themselves as good guys while pushing people in poverty, and congratulate them with their box. Presumably that got trough, as I never receive anything from citibank again.

You know that you can just opt out of credit based offers and it stops the majority of this kind of mail? No need to find rocks to mail.

Not living in the USA, and I am not aware of a local equivalent.

I've had luck with the Direct Marketing Association list removal service. I signed up years ago and it works pretty well for most credit card offers and such.

It cost money though. Not a lot. I think they've rebranded since I signed up, but this looks like this is it: https://www.dmachoice.org/static/faq.php

Lamentably I found myself on some charities mail lists. They're not part of the Direct Marketing Association and will send you stuff unsolicited (gloves? seriously?) in an attempt to guilt you into joining..

You can refuse mail by writing "Refused" on it and returning it to the mail system.

https://about.usps.com/what-we-are-doing/current-initiatives...

Funny just yesterday I was going to put a letter in the mailbox on the street that I had marked this way when I saw the postman. I asked him if I should give it to him or put it in the box, he said, "It doesn't matter we just throw it away."

If you don't put a stamp on it, it's probably going in the trash. If you put a stamp on it, they might return it.

The really annoying thing is that the service here is only available to US residents, even though much of the bulk mail I receive as a Canadian comes from US businesses that only bother to check the DMA list (and not the Canadian equivalent) even for the operations of their Canadian subsidiaries.

Given that it's a list for companies to obey, the service shouldn't care what country I live in, but only where the company sending the mail is headquartered, no?

I don't know if USPS offers this service, but for Canada Post, you can tape down a note to the inside of your mailbox where the postal worker will see it to indicate that you don't want to receive junk mail. https://www.canadapost-postescanada.ca/cpc/en/support/kb/rec... And yes, it really does work when combined with https://www.thecma.ca/resources/consumer-centre/get-less-pri... - when you do both, including opting out from CMA with multiple first and last names listed to handle different variations or previous occupants, you end up getting very few pieces of junk mail over the years. I actually wonder if some of it is returned to sender at the Canada Post sorting facility.

The worst part of renting is moving into a new place and having to start the journey of cancelling the Penny Saver subscription of a tenant that lived there a decade ago. Most of these subscriptions can't even be truly cancelled; they restart after several years if you don't bump it. I remember hearing last summer during the USPS dumpster fires that junk mail subsidizes postage for the rest of us -- I'd gladly pay more to end this silliness.

I always wonder if these kinds of stories are real, and this one does seem to be. It was reported in the San Diego Union-Tribune.

https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=117... (PDF link)

I think you are referring to the clip on page 64?

In the UK, I found putting a simple "No junk mail - addressed mail only" sticker on letterbox flaps cuts down junk mail by about 90% (I don't think it has any legal power though, it's just a request). It's rare to get a lot of addressed junk mail but maybe that's just me. There's a few lists you can sign up to for opting out of junk mail as well that maybe helped too:

https://personal.help.royalmail.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/...

Similar in Germany. I do wonder though if that just makes the trash collect elsewhere or if they actually print less spam.

In Russia junk mail isn't handled by the postal service. The companies that spam people just hire someone to stuff leaflets into people's mailboxes. There's not much you can do to stop it, especially if you live in a large building.

That's a serious issue also in my building of about 70 apartments, each one receiving some leaflets every day in the mailbox then throwing them away in a dedicated trashcan which has to be emptied at least twice a week. No way to complain with anyone since there's no postal service involved. During a residents meeting I suggested collecting all than junk for one year, then delivering it back in person to all businesses that spammed us, making it clear that they'd be going to be submerged by their trash, and apparently someone was considering that option. The problem is the huge waste of paper and materials, but the cost of printing and delivering by underpaid improvised irregular workers is so low that say only 2 people actually reading that junk might turn it into a deal for the spammers.

Yeah, sure, same here. However, at least in Germany, you have „Unterlassungsanspruch“ (injunctive relief). That means if you lawyer up (often free if have legal protection insurance) you can easily get an injunction against the distribution company. An e-mail is usually enough though.

So that’s why I don’t really get any spam, except the occasional flyer from food delivery services or questionable political parties/organizations.

People do it here in Ireland, but it has no legal force (others in this thread said it does in their country), and can't say it's made any noticeable difference.

In Slovakia it does have legal power. The advertising law prohibits unsolicited advertisment by paper mail, e-mail and telephone. For paper mail it's opt-out (No junk mail sticker). For email and phone it's opt-in (no cold calls). Works well for paper mail, but not the others.

Also here it is not the postal service that distributes the junk mail leaflets but independent agencies. The Post has monopoly on letters by law. Other deliveries have theri commercial providers alongside the state Post.

I’ve had luck opting myself out of junk mail, but how do I stop junk mail that is addressed to a previous resident?

Writing “return to sender; not at this address” has not noticeably helped (and in one case the mail was re-delivered to me anyway...).

I've had some success with NOT AT THIS ADDRESS in red on the front. I also occasionally pay for a month's use of the Paper Karma app.

https://www.paperkarma.com/

Notable bad actors who refuse to acknowledge either:

• A previous tenant in this apartment received catalogs from MCX (Marine Corps Exchange, not MXC, the crypto exchange). Lots of complaints online about these guys sending unstoppable spam.

• A local self-storage facility sends monthly notices to a previous tenant, and despite returned mail, phone calls, and even an in-person visit, insists that they cannot stop sending those letters because they are obligated by law to "make every attempt" to contact that person.

Thanks, I might try the Paper Karma app since it claims to deal with previous residents’ mail too (unlike the DMA opt-out site).

My other idea is to look up the previous resident on a “living person” search site and then notify the mailer of their (supposed) new address myself. I’d hate to have it redirect the torrent of mail to some other innocent person, but hopefully it will just go to the rightful addressee.

For the self-storage spam, I eventually just googled the name and region and found contact information for a plausible match. I sent them an email explaining the situation, and while I never heard back from them, I haven't seen any more mail yet...

I’ve had the most success with contacting the sender and telling them to stop sending mail to this address, no mention of the mismatched name.

What I don’t know how to solve is that after successfully unsubscribing from a particular spam mailing I just started receiving apartment n+1’s instead. What am I supposed to do, work my way through the whole building?

Try using DoNotPay.com they will send a demand letter asking to stop the mail. I haven’t gotten anything since!

When I do that it just shows up in my mailbox again a few days later :/

Maybe I need to hand it to the USPS worker vs drop it in a mail collection box....

Ever wonder how much it costs to deliver unaddressed junk mail?

https://eddm.usps.com/eddm/customer/routeSearch.action

Thanks, I didn’t know there was a name for this. “EDDM” is the most infuriating form of spam as there’s nothing I can do to opt out. I diligently return every piece to the misdirected box in pathetic protest.

It's insane to me that you have no way to opt out. In Australia you just stick a "no junk mail" sign on your box and its now illegal to send you promotional material.

The California CCPA makes this much easier than it used-to be.

Find the company's website. They'll have a "Do Not Sell" link on the home page or at least in the Privacy Policy it'll say California Privacy Rights. They'll have an e-mail address or a web form to fill out to request they delete your information from their system.

I've had some hassles with a large minority of companies telling me they can't find me in their system, so now I always take a picture of the address label, and include that where possible to eliminate that nonsense.

Bit of a hassle to chase each company that's mailing you, but it works to eliminate any annoyances.

Junk mail is annoying.

For whatever reason many local ads have switched from being mailed to being delivered by someone in a car (tossing them out the window in a plastic sleeve).

It's slightly more annoying and I suspect it significantly increases the GHG emissions associated with those ads because there's an extra piece of plastic and because a second vehicle is being used to deliver a set of ads that used to come in the mail.

There's a local takeaway that easily sends me 10 pieces of junk mail a year. Some days when I'm feeling grumpy, I imagine myself and a few neighbours storing it up and returning a years worth to the takeaway so they can deal with disposing of it.

The most annoying thing about those junk mail is that it actually distracts me from focusing on really important notices.

Fight back by mailing back any unsolicited pre-paid envelopes, stuffed with other random junk mail you’ve received.

It's nice to see a business rather than the consumer on the other side of a unfavorable contact.

I'm surprised that there aren't any "what's a check" comments!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com