Franking Types and Methods
While all affixed postage stamps and other markings applied to mail to qualify it for postal service are franking (or "franks"), not all types and methods are used to frank all types or classes of mails. Each of the world's national postal administrations establishes and regulates the specific methods and standards of franking as they apply to domestic operations within their own postal systems. Although there are differences in the manner that the postal systems of the 191 nations that belong to the Universal Postal Union (UPU) apply and regulate the way their mails are franked, most mails fall under one (and sometimes more) of four major types and/or methods of franking: postage (stamps, etc.), privilege, official business, and business reply mail.
Any and all conflicts that might arise affecting the franking of mails serviced by multiple administrations which result from differences in these various postal regulations and/or practices are mediated by the UPU, a specialized agency of the United Nations which sets the rules and technical standards for international mail exchanges. The UPU co-ordinates the application of the regulations of postal systems of its member nations, including as they relate to franking, to permit the servicing and exchange of international mails. Prior to the establishment of the UPU in 1874, international mails sometimes bore mixed franking (the application of franking of more than one country) before the world's postal services universally agreed to deliver international mails bearing only the franking of the country of origin.
Read more about this topic: Franking
Famous quotes containing the words types and/or methods:
“Our children evaluate themselves based on the opinions we have of them. When we use harsh words, biting comments, and a sarcastic tone of voice, we plant the seeds of self-doubt in their developing minds.... Children who receive a steady diet of these types of messages end up feeling powerless, inadequate, and unimportant. They start to believe that they are bad, and that they can never do enough.”
—Stephanie Martson (20th century)
“The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.””
—Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)