Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Is Robot-calling An 800 Number a Nuisance Call? Message-ID: Date: 13 Nov 89 15:46:21 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Lines: 20 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 509, message 13 of 13 In article you write: >And by the way, the mis-use of Business Reply Envelopes (mailing them >back blank, etc) is also against the law. You've been counseled. PT] Huh? I understand why the Post Office is allowed to throw it away if you glue one to a brick, but in what way is sending back an empty envelope illegal? Pretty stupid law if it even exists, it'd be near impossible to prove intent. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl [Moderator's Note: Didn't the original note refer to sending back *lots* of empty envelopes? If so, the intent would be easier to demonstrate. And although an empty envelope in the mail could easily be the fault of an absent-minded person who forgot to include whatever it was he was mailing, stuffing the envelope with (ahem!) un-business-like correspondence just to cause the receiver to pay lots of postage (something far less obvious than a brick, for example) is a mis-use of the envelope. PT]