Tuesday is the day his weekly housekeeper comes which causes him to slightly alter his method of securing his home when he departs for his morning duties.  There are two locks on his exit door and when he leaves he secures both of them meaning he needs the key for the dead bolt lock.  If he does not have the ‘fail safe’ key, he cannot lock the door and, ergo, he then fetches the key case ordinarily in the pocket of the trousers he wears in the afternoons when he changes from his starched morning apparel. 
But because of the presence of his housekeeper, he did not need to use the key thereby unknowingly leaving home without it, an extremely rare occurrence. He did not miss it until he later arrived back home, stopping at the post office to get his mail. Keep in mind he has been using this office site all his long life, living not too far from its physical presence.  Too, he has spoken occasionally with the officer in charge there; they know each other officially. The rental fee for the postal drawer is currently paid.  
So when he entered the building to get his newspaper and other offerings, he realized he did not have his key and seeing the office was open, he went inside, politely spoke and asked the postal official if she would please hand him his mail explaining he had left his key at home.
 To his surprise, she politely but seemingly apologetically explained that she was not allowed to honor his request, citing postal regulations.  He did not argue although he felt in this case, there was no need for unquestioned blind compliance to such a rule.  After all, it was his personal mailbox and, too, they knew each other, plus identification, if required was available..
He can understand that if a ‘stranger’ or even someone other than he himself, asked for his mail, the rule should logically be followed denying the request, and he would agree with that ‘no mail delivery’ rule.  Mail is something personal and at times proprietary information and its disposition should be handled with great discretion.    
So he accepts that he could not disagree with the clerk who followed this rule after all she was only doing her job and officially probably doing it properly one supposes. But …
He would contend that in such a case as he has described, should not common sense have prevailed?
*  
Bill Lee, PO Box 128,
Hamer, SC  29547