On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:51:52 UTC, Brian Morrison
wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:37:23 UTC, Brian Morrison
wrote:

What on earth would be the point?
To endure that printing the stamp is done from within the Java sandbox
so that only one print attempt per bar-code can be made.

An over-complex and ultimately useless solution! One can always hold the
print job at the spooler, and ask it to print multiple times...so that
would not be secure at all.

That's why it has to be done with unique barcodes.

Except that they're not unique if they can be printed multiple times.

That's merely terminology. Perhaps I should have said 'use once'. The
Java solution doesn't stop things being printed more than once - it is
trivial to circumvent that (really trivial on my system). But, even if
it were a bit more tricky, it's a whopping hole.

The bar code can be printed as many times as you wish. Use it more than
once and only the first letter to be franked will get through without
postage due charges being raised. Seems a solid solution.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

Brian Morrison wrote:

I can't see this today plus one day approach being much use for anything
other than occasional use.

Then you're probably not in the target market for the service.

In message , at 17:38:38 on Tue, 19 Sep
2006, Brian Morrison remarked:
Ensure that the same bar code cannot be printed more than
once by doing the printing from inside a custom application in Java or
possibly something that is downloaded and installed?

And how does that work when the printer jams, runs out of ink, falls off
the network suddenly, and so on?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 17:32:15 on
Tue, 19 Sep 2006, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
they can now sell stamps for **** all overhead..

But what's the credit/debit card commission on one 23p transaction?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 17:02:31 on Tue, 19 Sep
2006, Tim Ward remarked:
How difficult is it to buy a book of 100 First Class Stamps (if what you
are selling is small items)?

It means a trip to a post office whilst same is open. This is not something
I normally do. So it's quite a big deal actually.

And you never pass a post office during non-vampire hours? 100 stamps
last a long time, you just need to buy them when the opportunity arises.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

And you never pass a post office during non-vampire hours?

Don't think so, not often enough to keep me in stamps. And if I did it's
unlikely that I'd have enough spare time for the queue anyway.

100 stamps last a long time

We usually buy rather more than that, and try to keep buying stamps to no
more than once or twice a year.

you just need to buy them when the opportunity arises.

No, we only make special trips to post offices when we actually need to.

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
.. .
I don't quite follow to reference to eBay, as many eBay items won't fit
in a postbox, and some sort of proof of posting is often useful. And
especially with the new rules (and dodgy kitchen scales) I'd normally
want to visit the Post Office anyway to get an item priced.

However, if you had an eBay business selling large numbers of small items,
it could be very useful.

Then it would probably work out cheaper to use one of the business post
schemes. I simply put a rubber stamp impression on every envelope and Royal
Mail sends someone around to pick up the mail bags.

Colin Bignell

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
I think this is rather cunning...actually.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5358436.stm

And nobody has thought that inkjet ink is not waterproof (unless you go out
of your way to find waterproof that is) and will get messed up on the way to
the postbox in the rain.

Bob

In message , at 18:43:24 on Tue, 19 Sep
2006, Tim Ward remarked:

we only make special trips to post offices when we actually need to.

I only make *special* trips when I need to, but the local co-op
incorporates a sub post office, and at least 1 in 10 times I go there,
the queue is short enough that I might consider buying some stamps to
put in stock. It's also likely that the supermarket bit sells stamps,
too (as do many others).
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:52:43 +0100, Christian McArdle wrote:

So they've designed a broken system and then dropped the broken pieces
on the general public. I can't see how this is any better than a book of
stamps.

Very simple. I can never find a book of stamps. I can pretty much always
find a computer and printer. No need to go shopping or rummaging through old
drawers in a desperate attempt to find some.

I'm the other way around - book of stamps in the wallet, whereas if I go
near a computer it invariably doesn't work, or the printer's out of
paper, or the printer's out of ink, or communiation between printer and
computer is broken... :-)

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:08:53 UTC, Brian Morrison
wrote:

Thus forcing RM to have a constantly increasing database unless they
have other means of limiting validity.

They have...there's a date embedded in there. As you said yourself.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:34:34 UTC, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 17:02:31 on Tue, 19 Sep
2006, Tim Ward remarked:
How difficult is it to buy a book of 100 First Class Stamps (if what you
are selling is small items)?

It means a trip to a post office whilst same is open. This is not something
I normally do. So it's quite a big deal actually.

And you never pass a post office during non-vampire hours? 100 stamps
last a long time, you just need to buy them when the opportunity arises.

Or buy them from the website! :-) [mail order]
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:51:52 +0100, Brian Morrison wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:37:23 UTC, Brian Morrison
wrote:

What on earth would be the point?
To endure that printing the stamp is done from within the Java sandbox
so that only one print attempt per bar-code can be made.

An over-complex and ultimately useless solution! One can always hold the
print job at the spooler, and ask it to print multiple times...so that
would not be secure at all.

That's why it has to be done with unique barcodes.

Except that they're not unique if they can be printed multiple times.

The data's unique within RM's system; there's nothing stopping the user
from making multiple copies, but the data still only permits a single
*valid* entity.

"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...
Grunff wrote:
Guy King wrote:

Seems reasonable. After all, the whole point of using unique barcodes is
so you can't reproduce them fraudulently. Printing it again should be
easy.

With it being browser based, you can print it as many times as you like.
The anti-fraud system will have to kick in when two identically-coded
packages are scanned through the system.



I suspect that it will involve some sort of Java applet that will only
print what it is allowed to, the browser's direct printing ability will
have to be suspended for this to work.

Even if it did stop you printing it twice, what's to stop
someone photocopying it?

tim

Brian Morrison writes:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Brian Morrison writes:
Grunff wrote:
Brian Morrison wrote:

I suspect that it will involve some sort of Java applet that will
only print what it is allowed to, the browser's direct printing
ability will have to be suspended for this to work.

What on earth would be the point?

To endure that printing the stamp is done from within the Java sandbox
so that only one print attempt per bar-code can be made.

Never heard of photocopiers? Scanners? Screenshot buttons?

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...
Grunff wrote:
Guy King wrote:

Seems reasonable. After all, the whole point of using unique barcodes
is
so you can't reproduce them fraudulently. Printing it again should be
easy.

With it being browser based, you can print it as many times as you like.
The anti-fraud system will have to kick in when two identically-coded
packages are scanned through the system.



I suspect that it will involve some sort of Java applet that will only
print what it is allowed to, the browser's direct printing ability will
have to be suspended for this to work.

Why? It doesn't matter if you print 100 copies. Only one parcel with that
bar code will get through the PO system.

"Simon Morris" wrote in message
...

A bloke on "Today" implied that they'd consider the postage to have been
not paid on packages whose stamp barcode has previously been scanned.

I wonder if the system copes with someone scanning the same parcel twice by
mistake.

"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...

So they've designed a broken system and then dropped the broken pieces
on the general public. I can't see how this is any better than a book of
stamps.

It's not a new system. Post offices have been using a similar system for a
long time for parcels.

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:13:47 +0100, Brian Morrison put finger to
keyboard and typed:

Mark Goodge wrote:

Except that they're not unique if they can be printed multiple times.

The barcode is unique to the purchase. Once scanned on its way through
the postal system, it will generate an error if scanned in again and
hence prevent re-use of the same code.

Yes, but with the inconvenience on the addressee rather than the sender.

They can refuse to accept it.

I'm also suspicious that it makes it easier to connect a specific letter
with the sender since RM will have records of who bought which bar
codes. I'm temperamentally unsuited to such "improvements".

That is true, but it's true of all franked (as opposed to stamped)
mail. All this service is is one-off franking - making available to
the individual consumer a service that has been available to business
customers for a long time. Calling it "online stamps" is a misnomer,
it isn't a stamp at all in the usual sense (and hence complaints[1]
about it not having the Queen's head on, or being bad for
philatelists, are entirely missing the point).

[1] See http://tinyurl.com/g7nx9 - the Daily Mail declined to approve
my comment!

Mark
--
Please help a cat in need: http://www.goodge.co.uk/cat/

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:43:24 on Tue, 19 Sep
2006, Tim Ward remarked:

we only make special trips to post offices when we actually need to.

I only make *special* trips when I need to, but the local co-op
incorporates a sub post office

All our local post offices have been closed.

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

On 2006-09-19 17:32:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

Grunff wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think this is rather cunning...actually.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5358436.stm


Well, it is and it isn't - we, and quite a few others, have been doing
online barcode generation for discount vouchers, gift vouchers etc. for
a good few years now. Several of the parcel service companies have also
been using it.

So the technology is not at all new, the only new thing is applying it
to Royal Mail post.


h - definitely i didn't mean the technology was cunning, just that they
can now sell stamps for **** all overhead..

However, having looked at it, I can say that Fedex and DHL have nothing
to worry about.

With these companies I can arrange the pickups, print the airwaybills
and even commercial invoices, all correct and on line.

I can see the stage of the items at all times.

When there's a problem I can call someone to get it fixed.

In comparison, Royal Mail is still titting around with Penny Blacks.
Time for an open market.

Brian Morrison wrote:

So they've designed a broken system and then dropped the broken pieces
on the general public. I can't see how this is any better than a book of
stamps.

Because this way they get to collect an extra pound for every failure.

Remember that inkjet printer ink is far from waterproof too.

"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...
Michael Hoffman wrote:

Yes, I can. Ensure that the same bar code cannot be printed more than
once by doing the printing from inside a custom application in Java or
possibly something that is downloaded and installed?

And this will stop them from using a driver that prints to a file that
can be repeatedly printed? Or photocopied?

Perhaps not, but that takes more effort to do that simply clicking print
again.

I just think that the whole shebang needed more thought, after all the
do mention unique bar codes, implying that only one of each can be
printed. If it ain't so then they are not being truthful.

Shirly all you need to do today to get the same effect is to post things
without stamps on.

A computer that stops stamps being repeatly printed does not stop attempted
fraud, it makes the user pay for valid mistakes.

The risk is in the algorytham being worked out and items being posted using
'stamps' that had been purchased but not used yet, but I expect the cost of
doing this would be to high to make it a worthwhile fraud unless bulk
mailing, and then there would be a large number of hits in one batch (you
couln't be sure to beat the post at the real end all the time) probebly
enough to make the PO invistage the batch and work out what you were doing.

And in response to your other post, you already have one of those
everlasting books of stamps, 6 stamps which are valid and an infinate number
of 'not stamps' which you can 'not peel' and 'not stick' to you envolopes
leaving them with 'no postage'.

"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...
Jules wrote:


The data's unique within RM's system; there's nothing stopping the user
from making multiple copies, but the data still only permits a single
*valid* entity.



Thus forcing RM to have a constantly increasing database unless they
have other means of limiting validity.

I can't see this today plus one day approach being much use for anything
other than occasional use.

I doubt that the RM have a list of invalid stamps they test against, much
more lightly that the hold a list of valid stamps which age out or are
canceled by the letter arriving at the sorting office.

Anything else would be madness

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

However, having looked at it, I can say that Fedex and DHL have nothing to
worry about.

With these companies I can arrange the pickups, print the airwaybills and
even commercial invoices, all correct and on line.

I can see the stage of the items at all times.

When there's a problem I can call someone to get it fixed.

OTOH RM can actually find my house reliably, unlike couriers :-(

(and the sorting office is a mile from my house, rather than 30+ like a lot
of the couriers).

cheers,
clive

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:10:14 +0100, Owain put finger to keyboard and
typed:

CWatters wrote:
A bloke on "Today" implied that they'd consider the postage to have been
not paid on packages whose stamp barcode has previously been scanned.
I wonder if the system copes with someone scanning the same parcel twice by
mistake.

Hopefully, as the barcode seems to incorporate both the date of posting
(+ 1 day) and the recipient address, if the barcode detail agrees with
the physical packet they would let it through, on the assumption it's a
scanning error.

If the system stores all the scans it should pick up patterns of
fraudulent use such as companies using one low value stamp to send lots
of items every day to head office - which is about the only worthwhile
fraud opportunity I can think of, given the stamps are restricted by
date and recipient.

Is the recipient address definitely coded into the barcode? It isn't
on the similar SmartStamp product which has been available to
businesses for a while.

Mark
--
Please help a cat in need: http://www.goodge.co.uk/cat/

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:41:41 +0100, Grunff put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Brian Morrison wrote:

To endure that printing the stamp is done from within the Java sandbox
so that only one print attempt per bar-code can be made.

Well, yes, but if they display it full size, you can always screen-grab it.

You could also print to a virtual printer (or Postscript/PDF creator)
and then reprint the captured file later.

It's impossible to make it impossible to print something more than
once. You can make it difficult, but if you rely on it being difficult
as a method of validation then all you do is encourage people to
explore ways of defeating it.

....or for the non-technical user possibly require a number of extra steps
that means they get bored/scared/out of their depth and don't use the
system.

Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 06:53:18 UTC, Tim Fitzmaurice
wrote:

...or for the non-technical user possibly require a number of extra steps
that means they get bored/scared/out of their depth and don't use the
system.

Scared of using a photocopier???

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:08:06 UTC, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 06:53:18 UTC, Tim Fitzmaurice
wrote:

...or for the non-technical user possibly require a number of extra steps
that means they get bored/scared/out of their depth and don't use the
system.

Scared of using a photocopier???

Sorry, Tim. I read that too fast and assumed you were making a
completely different argument! I *think* I'm awake now...!

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:12:31 +0100, Brian Morrison put finger to
keyboard and typed:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:38:38 on Tue, 19 Sep
2006, Brian Morrison remarked:
Ensure that the same bar code cannot be printed more than
once by doing the printing from inside a custom application in Java or
possibly something that is downloaded and installed?

And how does that work when the printer jams, runs out of ink, falls off
the network suddenly, and so on?

Accepted that this is a bit tricky Roland, but then the whole deal seems
that way to me. Whichever part of the process has to ensure single use
of a given stamp is adding complexity to what was previously a simple
arrangement.

This is a problem that has always existed for franked mail (as opposed
to stamped mail). Take a look at any commerciallly posted letter that
you've received lately, and wonder how Royal Mail manage to avoid the
franking mark being used repeatedly. But, because it's a long-standing
problem, it has a number of long-standing solutions. And all this
system is doing is allowing individuals to do their own franking,
rather than restricting franking to organisations with bigger budgets.
There isn't anything new here, from the point of view of Royal Mail,
that requires them to come up with a new process to validate the
franking mark.

The really important thing to remember is that, for all that the media
are calling them "online stamps", this system is *not* producing
stamps in the sense generally understood - it's more of a personal
franking system, which works in a completely different way to stamped
mail. It's just that most individual users of the Post Office never
get to send franked mail (although they almost certainly receive it
regularly), so they don't understand how franking works.

Mark
--
Please help a cat in need: http://www.goodge.co.uk/cat/

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Brian Morrison wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:38:38 on Tue, 19 Sep
2006, Brian Morrison remarked:
Ensure that the same bar code cannot be printed more than
once by doing the printing from inside a custom application in Java or
possibly something that is downloaded and installed?

And how does that work when the printer jams, runs out of ink, falls off
the network suddenly, and so on?

Accepted that this is a bit tricky Roland, but then the whole deal seems
that way to me. Whichever part of the process has to ensure single use
of a given stamp is adding complexity to what was previously a simple
arrangement.

I do wonder if this is true though....let me play Devil's Advocate for a
second. Previously it was buy stamp, stick stamp on letter process. With
the new system its buy barcode, print bar code then they have some
checking system to ensure validity.

However to go back a step - prior to the barcode they had franking
machines as well as stamps. They must have had to have some check system
to ensure validity of franked mail - to prevent forgeries from 3rd
parties. Also the same with stamps they should have some check system in
place to ensure no forged/reused stamps are getting in.

Therefore is a check system for these barcode stamps really adding to the
complexity of the system. Any reader system to run them through the mail
can include a validity check method fairly trivially, presumably in a
similar manner to preventing fraud via false frank marks...checking 'real'
stamps for validity/non-forgery seems much more difficult.

Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568

On 2006-09-20 09:13:40 +0100, Owain said:

Bob Eager wrote:
Scared of using a photocopier???

I've had some bad experiences with photocopiers, and it wasn't because
I was trying to photocopy my arse when drunk.

Owain

You could tell that to Xerox. They are always looking for original ideas.

Tim Ward wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

And you never pass a post office during non-vampire hours?

Don't think so, not often enough to keep me in stamps. And if I did it's
unlikely that I'd have enough spare time for the queue anyway.

100 stamps last a long time

We usually buy rather more than that, and try to keep buying stamps to no
more than once or twice a year.

you just need to buy them when the opportunity arises.

No, we only make special trips to post offices when we actually need to.

You can buy traditional stamps on line, no need to make a special trip
to the PO.

MBQ

On 19 Sep 2006 06:42:19 -0700, wrote:


Roland Perry wrote:
In the USA they have a better system: a set of scales in an open area at
the Post Office

They do in all the POs I've been into in the UK, on the public side of
the counter. I've never had a problem going up and weighing things and
then joining the back of the queue if I determine I haven't got the
correct stamps.

MBQ

Well that's what they used to have as I did that as well but now they have some
new fangles thingy that you put the letter etc on and it shows the assistant on
his/her side of the counter what the cost is .Not so convenient as the previous
arrangement .

Stuart

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:47:24 +0100, "Bob Smith" bob@nospamplease wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
. ..
I think this is rather cunning...actually.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5358436.stm

And nobody has thought that inkjet ink is not waterproof (unless you go out
of your way to find waterproof that is) and will get messed up on the way to
the postbox in the rain.

Bob


AND when the postman trudges along your street with the rain ****ing down .

Thats why I usually put sellotape over the address if I have printed out a
label,although usually I just write it with a pen .

Stuart

"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...
On 19/09/2006 William Munns wrote:
And in response to your other post, you already have one of those
everlasting books of stamps, 6 stamps which are valid and an infinate
number of 'not stamps' which you can 'not peel' and 'not stick' to you
envolopes leaving them with 'no postage'.

True, however I think that it is uncommon to post anything without first
stamping it. The repeated printing of a bar-coded stamp encourages this
by having an effectively invalid stamp. The "not stamp" in my book of
stamps doesn't have that same property.

OK, perhaps I am being dumb here, you try to defraud the PO {by printing the
stamp multiple times/by excluding a stamp}, you know you are in the wrong
and you post the letter, in a postbox on the street where no-one can see you
close enough to {see/even tell if you had used} a stamp. The letter goes to
the PO and they see it {has no stamp/uses a faulty barcode}. The letter gets
treeted as 2nd (or worse) and gets delivered to the PO of the destination
address where they forward a message to the recipient telling them about
lack of postage.

I don't know where you see the diffrence, the detection point is the same,
the person who pays is the same, the social stigma is the same, the only
diffrence I can see is if dumb people try to defraud the PO in this way they
might not expect to be caught, but they will be, but then dumb people have
been posting letters without postage for a long time, and the PO deals with
them already.

On 2006-09-20 12:37:44 +0100, Stuart said:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:47:24 +0100, "Bob Smith" bob@nospamplease wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
I think this is rather cunning...actually.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5358436.stm

And nobody has thought that inkjet ink is not waterproof (unless you go
out of your way to find waterproof that is) and will get messed up on
the way to the postbox in the rain.

Bob

AND when the postman trudges along your street with the rain ****ing down .

Thats why I usually put sellotape over the address if I have printed out a
label,although usually I just write it with a pen .

Stuart

Good grief

What a palaver.

This is why professional delivery organisations supply little plastic
stick on envelopes to take the label and any other documents.

I shouldn't need to worry about their logistics issues. It should be
possible to read their specs. for delivery requirements (e.g. weight,
dims, value, origin) write it on the address label, call them and
that's it.

These people are paid to deliver a service. The customer should not
have to think about the postman's wet weather arrangements.

All the time that customers go on accepting this nonsense from Royal
Mail, they will never improve. In reality, they are the Austin Rover
of the communications industry. Trading on past glories and living on
delusions of grandeur. It would be far kinder to kill them off
now rather than to see their inevitable slide into oblivion.

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:59:37 UTC, Jules
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:53:16 +0100, Mark wrote:
So they've designed a broken system and then dropped the broken pieces
on the general public. I can't see how this is any better than a book of
stamps.

You have a package - a present maybe. It's getting close to the last
collection for the day. You have a book of first class stamps, but the
postage value required for your package isn't an integral number of
32p multiples.

You can:

- use yout first class stamps and subsidise Royal Mail the difference
- take a trip to your local post office and queue
- print your own stamp to the correct value

Which requires you to know the precise weight of your present in order to
figure out postage costs, surely, even with the new charging system? So
for anything other than a letter that's obvously within single first class
rules, surely a trip to the post office is needed anyway to make sure that
the correct postage is put on the item?

I have letter and parcel scales, because I have always found them
useful. I doubt they check every item down to the last gram.

Having said that, it's all pretty useless if the item won't fit into the
postbox slot!

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

..

I just think that the whole shebang needed more thought, after all the
do mention unique bar codes, implying that only one of each can be
printed. If it ain't so then they are not being truthful.


Er.... by that argument they would have to invent a bar code that couldn't
be photocopied, photographed or scanned.

What you're really saying is there's no such thing as a unique barcode
because any bar code can be duplicated. I don't agree with you, but even if
you're right it's obvious that it doesn't take us anywhere.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
Good grief

What a palaver.

This is why professional delivery organisations supply little plastic
stick on envelopes to take the label and any other documents.

I shouldn't need to worry about their logistics issues. It should be
possible to read their specs. for delivery requirements (e.g. weight,
dims, value, origin) write it on the address label, call them and that's
it.

How much do you expect such a service to cost?
When do you want it picking up? Are you going to hang around for this?

clive