After reading the presentation, and looking at the pictures, and reading
about the aluminum wire, I will never, ever set foot in an Airbus.
-----Original Message-----
From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Timothy McGrady
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
John:
I forgot to mention - I heard that Airbus was going to aluminum wiring
instead of copper. I think their reasoning is weight savings, but I
know that recently some enviro-zealots from California were discussing a
ban of copper in that state. Doesn't aluminum wiring have some serious
disadvantages to copper, e.g., more shorts, problems with insulation and
relatively high thermal expansion versus copper?
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Burke" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "'(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)'" <[log in to unmask]>;
"'Timothy McGrady'" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:28 AM
Subject: RE: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
> Could someone PLEASE enlighten me about why Airbus is even concerned
> with this non issue?
>
> Aircraft are the epitomy of the need for safety requirements. Over
> even a car and here is the reason why.
>
> Car carries few (but individually irreplaceable) people. Car
> electronics stops, best case car rolls to a stop - passengers get out.
>
> Airbus electronics fails on critical system, airbus stops, and falls
> 32000 feet carrying hundreds of people.
>
> I believe the only possibility of an airbus turning up in the waste
> stream is if it crashed into a recycling center.
>
> John
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Timothy McGrady
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:15 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>
> Here's a clip from an article in today's newspaper out of China:
>
> The first A380 will be delivered to Singapore Airlines in October
> 2007, almost a year behind schedule. Sources said the airline would
> first use the superjumbo to fly routes to Sydney and London.
>
> Airbus attributed the delivery delay to problems with installing
> onboard wiring systems.
>
> _________________________________________
>
>
>
> Hmmm...
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stadem, Richard D." <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 8:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>
>
> Airbus planes are indeed quieter and more comfortable.
> They never leave the ground, thanks to their ecological, lead-free
> electronics that are much easier to recycle.
> No engine noise, none of that infernal buffeting from the wind.......
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Suraski
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 8:38 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>
> Why should we presume that Airbus isn't making their suppliers prove
> to them first that the new (lead-free) design meets all requirements?
> Maybe the hoops they're making their suppliers of lead-free products
> jump through are even more challenging than those Boeing would have
> their suppliers jump through? Just because they have a hokey ad
> campaign about lead-free electronics doesn't mean that they're not
> doing their homework before implementation.
>
> I'm not an Airbus-backer or Boeing-detractor (though I do think that
> Airbus' planes are quieter and more comfortable), nor do I have any
> idea what these companies are REALLY doing about lead-free, but how
> much can we really take from that article? Not too much, IMO. All we
> can is hope that they're acting responsibly.
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kane, Joseph E (US SSA) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:16 AM
> To: (Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum); David Suraski
> Subject: RE: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>
> We're a supplier to Boeing, and they've made it clear that they won't
> accept lead-free solder unless we prove to them first that the new
> design meets all requirements.
>
> As a high-technology company, they have to be interested in this
> development, but they're not going to allow lead-free solder without
> making the supplier jump through some hoops.
>
> And they have not made a splashy corporate announcement about making a
> "lead-free airplane" for silly and unfathomable reasons. This will be
> a comfort to me the next time I'm flying in an aluminum tube 7 miles
> up at Mach 0.8.
>
> -Joe
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Suraski
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:04 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>
>
> Tim,
>
> How do we know that Boeing will not use RoHS-compliant electronic? I
> have heard information to the contrary, not to mention the quote from
> the article you cite that states (capitalization mine): "Industrial
> Advisory Board (IAB) members, BOEING, Rockwell Collins, ITT, Raytheon,
> and Lockheed Martin, have individually and collectively performed
> research and development tasks on Lead Free solders. Together, it is
> proposed that a new Lead Free Program be initiated."
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Timothy McGrady
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 8:50 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>
> Brian:
>
> Go back and read the link provided. It states that the A-380 will
> have RoHS-compliant electronics. Boeing will not do that, nor will
> anyone else making aircraft except Airbus (and now, it seems, NATO and
> a few others).
> The unknown reliability of RoHS-compliant products causes me to not
> want to stake my life on an Airbus A-380 or any other plane that
> accepts equipment with unknown longterm reliability. No Airbus A-380
for me.
> Period.
>
> Tim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Ellis" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)" <[log in to unmask]>;
> "Timothy McGrady" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 7:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>
>
>> What's so different between an A380 and any other plane? Boeing and
>> Airbus have a common programme for all flight electronics techniques
>> and lead-free.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> Timothy McGrady wrote:
>>> And they fire lead-free bullets as well. That's right - they used
>>> depleted uranium! Much better for the environment and human health.
>
>>> No chance of getting lead poisoning if one of those bullets lodges
>>> in
>
>>> your brain.
>>>
>>> I will not fly on an A-380. Period.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "John Burke" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 1:54 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>>>
>>>
>>>> So we should be through this by about 2010.......8-)
>>>>
>>>> What really worries me is this item:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.empf.org/programs/leadfree.htm
>>>>
>>>> My personal opinion is that if you take a military weapons system
>>>> (fighter aircraft etc) and make it lead free the safest place to be
>>>> in order of preference would be:
>>>>
>>>> 1 A long way away from it
>>>>
>>>> 2 Above it
>>>>
>>>> 3 Behind it
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael
>>>> Kirschner
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:37 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>>>>
>>>> And the written-off parts get sold to brokers, and they sell them
>>>> to
>
>>>> other brokers, and so on, and eventually somebody remarks them and
>>>> counterfeits the packaging to identify them as compliant so they
>>>> can
>
>>>> sell them so some poor soul desperate for allocated compliant
>>>> parts...
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Timothy McGrady [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:24 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]; (Leadfree Electronics Assembly
>>>> Forum)
>>>> Subject: Re: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I agree, the mixing of parts has been a big problem. Some
>>>> companies have written off entire inventories of non-compliant
>>>> parts
>
>>>> for just that reason.
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Michael Kirschner" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: "Timothy McGrady" <[log in to unmask]>; "(Leadfree
>>>> Electronics Assembly Forum)" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 12:56 PM
>>>> Subject: RE: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Tim,
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent point regarding standards. Unfortunately we are
>>>>> generally
>
>>>>> seeing just the opposite occur around the world: regulations beget
>>>>> standards rather than the other way around. Having the standard in
>>>>> place first ensures that industry understands how to actually
>>>>> accomplish something and can actually do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my humble opinion the primary risk for one of the big companies
>>>>> likely to be a target is the production problem of mixed parts,
>>>>> rather than improper or inadequate testing (I absolutely agree
>>>>> there are labs that are not using the right tests out there; but I
>>>>> think that's a second order issue).
>>>>> There
>>>>> have been, and continue to be, many reports of not-compliant parts
>>>>> shipping as, being stocked as, or being used as compliant parts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Timothy McGrady [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 9:16 AM
>>>>> To: (Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum); Mike Kirschner
>>>>> Subject: Re: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for that link, Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>> When an enforcement authority finally does make the decision to go
>>>>> ahead with a prosecution, they better make sure they've done their
>>>>> homework.
>>>>> There are very few standard methods for analysis of RoHS
>>>>> substances
>
>>>>> and there are few reference materials with which to validate those
> methods.
>>>>> That is not to say they cannot come up with a solid case - I'm
>>>>> saying that they should chose that case wisely and make sure they
>>>>> can support their findings with solid, validated methodology. It
>>>>> will have to be a "no brainer" - an obvious violation. But of
>>>>> course, the EU would prefer to catch a high-profile company in
>>>>> non-compliance. And it is likely they want to catch a company
>>>>> originating in a developed nation such as Japan or the US -
>>>>> picking
>
>>>>> on a developing nation might not sit right with public opinion.
>>>>> That might not be so easy, given the amount of attention paid to
>>>>> RoHS by the big boys. None of them wants to be the next Sony, and
>>>>> they certainly do not want their company name or product name in
>>>>> the media.
>>>>>
>>>>> That being said, there has been a lot of testing done using
>>>>> methods
>
>>>>> that are inappropriate and can result in false negatives. So
>>>>> there's a chance that a relatively big company placed faith in a
>>>>> lab or used inappropriate methods themselves to overcheck results
>>>>> from independent labs. Even so, there's also a good chance that
>>>>> EU
>
>>>>> enforcement authorities will also use inappropriate methods to
>>>>> determine non-compliance (or conversely, compliance). The lack of
>>>>> properly developed standards hurts all
>>>>> involved:
>>>>> enforcement authorities and producers alike. That is why
>>>>> standards
>
>>>>> must be in place before technical legislation such as RoHS go into
>>>>> effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The example I use to illustrate this problem concerns a government
>>>>> developing a regulation stating that all children age 14 and under
>>>>> must wear a helmet while riding a bicycle. Let's say that no
>>>>> standards for helmets were developed prior to the regulation going
>>>>> into force. A kid is observed riding a bicycle wearing a baseball
>>>>> cap. Is that kid in violation of the law? Not without a standard
>>>>> defining a helmet and laying out the technical requirements
>>>>> necessary to protect the head in case of an accident. Now let's
>>>>> say the givernment developed extensive requirements for the helmet
>>>>> and a standards development body developed a standard for such
>>>>> helmets.
>>>>> The
>>>>> resulting helmet would protect the head in every case, but it
>>>>> would
>
>>>>> cost $2000. Would it be fair to expect a poor child riding a
>>>>> cheap
>
>>>>> bike to wear a $2000 helmet? Again, the answer is no. But if the
>>>>> law went into effect, there would likely be plenty of violations
>>>>> to
>
>>>>> go around. Fakes of standard helmets would quickly become
>>>>> available. In that case, the government should have taken their
>>>>> requirements to the standard developers and experts and get their
>>>>> feedback before putting the law on the books. If the law was too
>>>>> costly to implement, the regulation would have to be altered. In
>>>>> either case, it is necessary to have standards developed prior to
>>>>> the regulation going into force.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is why the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to
>>>>> Trade Agreement (TBT) is so important. Here is a quote from the
> TBT:
>>>>>
>>>>> "
>>>>> With respect to their central government bodies:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.1 Members shall ensure that in respect of technical regulations,
>>>>> products imported from the territory of any Member shall be
>>>>> accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like
>>>>> products of national origin and to like products originating in
>>>>> any
>
>>>>> other country.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.2 Members shall ensure that technical regulations are not
>>>>> prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of
>>>>> creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade. For this
>>>>> purpose, technical regulations shall not be more trade-restrictive
>>>>> than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, taking account of
>>>>> the risks non-fulfilment would create.
>>>>> Such
>>>>> legitimate objectives are, inter alia: national security
>>>>> requirements; the prevention of deceptive practices; protection of
>>>>> human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the
>>>>> environment. In assessing such risks, relevant elements of
>>>>> consideration are, inter alia: available scientific and technical
>>>>> information, related processing technology or intended end-uses of
>>>>> products.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.3 Technical regulations shall not be maintained if the
>>>>> circumstances or objectives giving rise to their adoption no
>>>>> longer
>
>>>>> exist or if the changed circumstances or objectives can be
>>>>> addressed in a less trade-restrictive manner.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.4 Where technical regulations are required and relevant
>>>>> international standards exist or their completion is imminent,
>>>>> Members shall use them, or the relevant parts of them, as a basis
>>>>> for their technical regulations except when such international
>>>>> standards or relevant parts would be an ineffective or
>>>>> inappropriate means for the fulfilment of the legitimate
>>>>> objectives
>
>>>>> pursued, for instance because of fundamental climatic or
>>>>> geographical factors or fundamental technological problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.5 A Member preparing, adopting or applying a technical
>>>>> regulation
>
>>>>> which may have a significant effect on trade of other Members
>>>>> shall, upon the request of another Member, explain the
>>>>> justification for that technical regulation in terms of the
>>>>> provisions of paragraphs 2 to 4. Whenever a technical regulation
>>>>> is
>
>>>>> prepared, adopted or applied for one of the legitimate objectives
>>>>> explicitly mentioned in paragraph 2, and is in accordance with
>>>>> relevant international standards, it shall be rebuttably presumed
>>>>> not to create an unnecessary obstacle to international trade.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.6 With a view to harmonizing technical regulations on as wide a
>>>>> basis as possible, Members shall play a full part, within the
>>>>> limits of their resources, in the preparation by appropriate
>>>>> international standardizing bodies of international standards for
>>>>> products for which they either have adopted, or expect to adopt,
>>>>> technical regulations.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.7 Members shall give positive consideration to accepting as
>>>>> equivalent technical regulations of other Members, even if these
>>>>> regulations differ from their own, provided they are satisfied
>>>>> that
>
>>>>> these regulations adequately fulfil the objectives of their own
>>>>> regulations.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.8 Wherever appropriate, Members shall specify technical
>>>>> regulations based on product requirements in terms of performance
>>>>> rather than design or descriptive characteristics.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.9 Whenever a relevant international standard does not exist or
>>>>> the technical content of a proposed technical regulation is not in
>>>>> accordance with the technical content of relevant international
>>>>> standards, and if the technical regulation may have a significant
>>>>> effect on trade of other Members, Members shall:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.9.1 publish a notice in a publication at an early appropriate
>>>>> stage, in such a manner as to enable interested parties in other
>>>>> Members to become acquainted with it, that they propose to
>>>>> introduce a particular technical regulation;
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.9.2 notify other Members through the Secretariat of the
>>>>> products
>
>>>>> to be covered by the proposed technical regulation, together with
>>>>> a
>
>>>>> brief indication of its objective and rationale. Such
>>>>> notifications
>
>>>>> shall take place at an early appropriate stage, when amendments
>>>>> can
>
>>>>> still be introduced and comments taken into account;
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.9.3 upon request, provide to other Members particulars or
>>>>> copies
>
>>>>> of the proposed technical regulation and, whenever possible,
>>>>> identify the parts which in substance deviate from relevant
>>>>> international standards;
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.9.4 without discrimination, allow reasonable time for other
>>>>> Members to make comments in writing, discuss these comments upon
>>>>> request, and take these written comments and the results of these
>>>>> discussions into account.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.10 Subject to the provisions in the lead-in to paragraph 9,
>>>>> where
>
>>>>> urgent problems of safety, health, environmental protection or
>>>>> national security arise or threaten to arise for a Member, that
>>>>> Member may omit such of the steps enumerated in paragraph 9 as it
>>>>> finds necessary, provided that the Member, upon adoption of a
>>>>> technical regulation, shall:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.10.1 notify immediately other Members through the Secretariat
>>>>> of
>
>>>>> the particular technical regulation and the products covered, with
>>>>> a brief indication of the objective and the rationale of the
>>>>> technical regulation, including the nature of the urgent problems;
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.10.2 upon request, provide other Members with copies of the
>>>>> technical regulation;
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.10.3 without discrimination, allow other Members to present
>>>>> their comments in writing, discuss these comments upon request,
>>>>> and
>
>>>>> take these written comments and the results of these discussions
>>>>> into account.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.11 Members shall ensure that all technical regulations which
>>>>> have
>
>>>>> been adopted are published promptly or otherwise made available in
>>>>> such a manner as to enable interested parties in other Members to
>>>>> become acquainted with them.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.12 Except in those urgent circumstances referred to in paragraph
>>>>> 10, Members shall allow a reasonable interval between the
>>>>> publication of technical regulations and their entry into force in
>>>>> order to allow time for producers in exporting Members, and
>>>>> particularly in developing country Members, to adapt their
>>>>> products
>
>>>>> or methods of production to the requirements of the importing
>>>>> Member."
>>>>>
>>>>> The EU has always argued that because their regulations such as
>>>>> RoHS are for protection of human health and the environment and
>>>>> because they impact their companies in the same way as they impact
>>>>> importing companies, there cannot be a trade barrier (see
>>>>> paragraphs 2 and 5 above). But paragraph 2 can be argued in the
>>>>> case of RoHS. I contend (as I think many of you do) that RoHS is
>>>>> much more trade restrictive than necessary, taking into account
>>>>> the
>
>>>>> actual impact the directive will have on human health and the
>>>>> environment.
>>>>> Had the proper standards been in place, billions of dollars would
>>>>> have been saved. If RoHS had not been implemented or had been
>>>>> delayed, I doubt many lives would be negatively impacted, if any
>>>>> at
>
>>>>> all. In fact, the argument can be made that RoHS can negatively
>>>>> impact human health, because there is high probability that a
>>>>> safety related part or system will fail due to the wholesale
>>>>> redesign of products and materials.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim McGrady
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Mike Kirschner" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 12:05 AM
>>>>> Subject: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob Spiegel spoke, at our behest, to Steve Andrews to get a clear
>>>>>> response on why we haven't seen any visible cases of
>>>>>> non-compliance in the EU yet.
>>>>>> He
>>>>>> has more credibility on this topic than just about anyone, even
>>>>>> DCA
>>>>>> ;o)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can read his story, entitled "EU Not Busting for RoHS
>>>>>> Violations Yet", at
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6387098.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the bottom line is that they're trying to find that first case
>>>>>> to go public with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Kirschner
>>>>>> Design Chain Associates, LLC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>>> -----Leadfee
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d To
>>>>>> unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following
>>>>>> text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree To
>>>>>> temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
>>>>>> send:
>>>>>> SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>>>>>> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>>>>>> Please visit IPC web site
>>>>>> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
>>>>>> for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at
>>>>>> [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>>> -----
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -
>>>> --------
>>>>
>>>> ---Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV
>>>> 1.8d To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with
>>>> following text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF
>>>> Leadfree
>
>>>> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
>>>> send:
>>>> SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>>>> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>>>> Please
>
>>>> visit IPC web site
>>>> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
>>>> for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at
>>>> [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -
>>>> --------
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> - -----------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using
>>>> LISTSERV 1.8d To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask]
>>>> with following text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF
>>>> Leadfree To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for
>>>> vacation breaks
>>>> send:
>>>> SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>>>> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>>>> Please
>
>>>> visit IPC web site
>>>> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
>>>> for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at
>>>> [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -
>>>> -----------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> - ----------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using
>>> LISTSERV 1.8d To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask]
>>> with
>
>>> following text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
>>> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
> send:
>>> SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>>> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please
>>> visit IPC web site
>>> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
>>> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>>> 847-615-7100
>>> ext.2815
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> ----------
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- -------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using
> LISTSERV 1.8d To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with
> following text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
> send:
> SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL) Search previous postings at:
> http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please visit IPC web site
> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
> 847-615-7100
> ext.2815
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> -------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- -------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using
> LISTSERV 1.8d To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with
> following text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
> send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please
> visit IPC web site
> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
> 847-615-7100
> ext.2815
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> -------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- -------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using
> LISTSERV 1.8d To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with
> following text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
> send:
> SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL) Search previous postings at:
> http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please visit IPC web site
> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
> 847-615-7100
> ext.2815
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> -------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> ---Leadfee
> Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d To
> unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree To temporarily
> stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send:
> SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please
> visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
> for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at
> [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> ---
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------ ---Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using
> LISTSERV 1.8d To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with
> following text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
send:
> SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please
> visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
> for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at
> [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> ---
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV
1.8d To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following
text in the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree To
temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send:
SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL) Search previous postings at:
http://listserv.ipc.org/archives Please visit IPC web site
http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100
ext.2815
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
