Ombudsman Arlene Brock earned her salary in her annual report last week when she revealed that the General Post Office’s “return to sender” policy was not only wrong-headed, but wasn’t saving much money either.Ms Brock began her investigation into the widely criticised policy in order to determine whether it contravened international requirements.There was a widely held opinion that post offices have an international obligation to make their best effort to deliver the mail, come what may.It turns out that this is not the case, although Ms Brock’s inquiry did show that many countries’ post offices do indeed do just that.But she also found out that far from saving the public $35,000 a month, the policy was probably saving about $14,000. And she then found out that the Post Office was employing people to find the right address — before returning the mail to the sender.This, she believed, would reduce the savings to something closer to $8,000 a month. Now $72,000 a year is not to be sneezed at in these times. But this has to be weighed against what economists call the opportunity cost of actually delivering the mail.As has been stated here and elsewhere, the irritation and difficulties this policy have caused have been severe. As top insurance executive Charles Dupplin has noted, it has damaged Bermuda’s reputation as an international business centre as well.It’s worth noting that it’s not just the sender who places a faulty address on a letter or package who is affected by this. The real victim is the recipient, who is often innocent of any wrongdoing. In their cases, they may not receive payments, critical items for their health or business and so on. This affects their personal and financial well-being through no fault of their own. And it damages Bermuda’s economy and reputation at the same time.The Post Office itself has admitted that the number of items it handles is in severe decline, so it makes little sense for it to drive customers away, which is precisely the effect of this policy.Most of the ground above has been covered here and elsewhere before, and Government finally saw sense last year — without admitting any error — when the regulations were eased before Christmas.But Ms Brock’s revelation that the addresses were actually being corrected before being returned to the sender compounds this charade.Why not just send the mail on? Yes, mail should be properly addressed. But there comes a point when the costs of a policy outweigh the benefits. Bermuda is well past that point.Now that Government’s defence that even if the policy was foolish, at least it saved money has been refuted, surely the time has come to abolish it and adopt the policy the Post Office should have had all along: to urge people to address their mail properly, but to promise to make every effort to deliver it.Not only would the cost of doing so be minimal, as Ms Brock has shown, but it would earn the Post Office some priceless goodwill.