we will distinguish by saying
1st pass Assembly Yield
1st pass Test Yield
At 10:43 AM 3/29/2012, Robert Kondner wrote:
>Richard,
>
>I will agree that a definition for 100% First Pass Yield is required. But I
>think a general concept for assembly work is did errors in the assembly
>process inhibit acceptance of the unit being assembled.
>
> Design Problem: If something "Does Not Work" but it was built correctly
>then it is "Good Assembly Work".
>
>BUT
>
> Implying that any non-trivial process is going to 100% yield is being less
>than truthful.
>
>Bob K.
>
>PS: I hope you are not a "Sales Guy" and if so I am sorry if you were
>offended? :-)
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem, Richard D.
>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:34 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [TN] Does YOUR company ever screw up rework?
>
>Sorry, Bob. I don't get it.
>
>It is entirely possible to have a 100% first pass yield, and yet have test
>failures.
>You need to be more careful in defining first pass yield. First pass yield
>is typically first inspection or first test, and you can even have a 100%
>final inspection yield or final test yield in spite of having test failures.
>It is all in the definition of yield.
>For example, most companies consider the yield to include only assembly,
>workmanship, and documentation defects. Defective components truly should
>not be part of that, that is a separate issue.
>Let's suppose that you are building CCAs for a customer. You have zero
>defects at the first inspection after reflow. Zero defects again during
>inspection after final assembly. Zero defects at In-circuit test (does not
>matter if it is Zehntel, flying probe, bed-of-nails, whatever). Zero defects
>at final inspection before test. However, due to the customer's design
>flaws, you have a 100% failure rate at final (functional) test. Every single
>board fails, yet they are all built 100% to print, and meet all of the
>workmanship and quality requirements, with 100% traceability, all
>documentation complete and without error.
>
>Are you going to tell your potential customer you have a 100% failure rate
>at final test?
>
>Could be the guy was 100% right; he had a 100% yield. It's not his fault the
>product doesn't work as designed.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Kondner
>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 11:33 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [TN] Does YOUR company ever screw up rework?
>
>Correct,
>
> And so many sales guys will tell customer "We are 100% accurate in what
>goes out the door. Our final QC misses nothing."
>
>Funny Story:
>
> I was visiting a perspective assembly shop once, I asked the guy about his
>% first pass yield. "Oh, 100%." He was absolutely confident in that number.
>
> So we walk a little further and there was a small pile of boards sitting up
>on a self so I asked what those were. "Oh, they failed test."
>
> He was still confident he had 100% first past yield.
>
> So the guy was either an idiot or a really good liar. I still have yet to
>decide which one.
>
>Bob K.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Glidden, Kevin
>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:12 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [TN] Does YOUR company ever screw up rework?
>
>If the company were perfect there would be no rework in the first place!
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Kondner [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:02 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [TN] Does YOUR company ever screw up rework?
>
>Rex,
>
> Absolutely Correct.
>
> Simple Solution: No doubt in my mind, it is a squirm to avoid
>responsibility for messing up a board.
>
>Here is my question:
>
> Is it reasonable to promise NOT to damage a board during rework? I suggest
>no. Even if people are perfect materials would not be perfect. (I would
>suggest materials are more consistent than people.)
>
>So let's hear for all the sales guys on this list that sell assembly/rework
>services: Does your company ever screw up boards?
>
>Bob K.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rex Waygood [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:13 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: RE: [TN] Rework Concern and Question - SEM EDX Results Posted
>
>See Occam's Razor.
>:-)
>Rex
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Kondner
>Sent: 28 March 2012 18:42
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [TN] Rework Concern and Question - SEM EDX Results Posted
>
>George,
>
> Sure, measuring the melting point of the folder is fine. But look at what
>we are suggesting here:
>
> 1. Either the solder used when the component was mounted has magically
>increased in melting temp.
>
>Or
>
> 2. Someone pulled the part off the board before the solder melted.
><---
>My Choice
>
>I have seen and done enough rework to have seen and pulled a few pads.
>Rework is not easy. But pointing the finger of blame to the board house or
>component? And using some high-tech erroneous SEM results as proof?
>Come on.
>
>
> It sounds like some rework shop trying to squirm out of screwing up a
>board.
>
>Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wenger, George M.
>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 1:14 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [TN] Rework Concern and Question - SEM EDX Results Posted
>
>Bob,
>
>That would be my first guess but rather than guessing I think it would be
>prudent to measure the melting temperature. That could be done crudely on a
>hot plate with thermocouples or you could take samples of the solder from
>the good and part parts and do DSC analysis which I don't think is
>necessary.
>
>Regards,
>George
>George M. Wenger
>Senior Principal Reliability / FMA Engineer Andrew Corporation - Wireless
>Network Solutions
>40 Technology Drive, Warren, NJ 07059
>(908) 546-4531 Office (732) 309-8964 Mobile
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Kondner [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 12:42 PM
>To: 'TechNet E-Mail Forum'; Wenger, George M.
>Subject: RE: [TN] Rework Concern and Question - SEM EDX Results Posted
>
>So are we back to the point of:
>
> "Someone pulled off the part before the solder melted?"
>
> Much simpler concept than Si or SEM results?
>
>Bob K.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wenger, George M.
>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 12:03 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [TN] Rework Concern and Question - SEM EDX Results Posted
>
>Hi Leland,
>
>SEM/EDX has its purpose but whenever we have problems with component
>soldering we always do XRF measurements to not only see what the surface
>finish is but to also measure the thickness of the surface finish. What
>we've found is that SEM/EDX is great for surface analysis but if you want to
>use it for bulk analysis you need to cross section samples and do
>measurements at several locations. I have two suggestions: 1st). I would
>do XRF measurements on an old "good" part and compare the results to XRF
>measurement on a new "bad" part and 2nd). I would take a board with a
>soldered new "bad" part and put it on a hot plate and monitor the
>temperature as the board heats and record the temperature at which the
>solder melts.
>
>If you don't have access to XRF I would be happy to make XRF measurements
>for you. Just put one old "good" and one new "bad" part in an envelope and
>send it to the address in my email signature block below. The measurements
>would only take a couple of minutes.
>
>Regards,
>George
>George M. Wenger
>Senior Principal Reliability / FMA Engineer Andrew Corporation - Wireless
>Network Solutions
>40 Technology Drive, Warren, NJ 07059
>(908) 546-4531 Office (732) 309-8964 Mobile
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David D. Hillman
>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:49 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [TN] Rework Concern and Question - SEM EDX Results Posted
>
>Hi Leland - do you have any photos of the "bad" parts after removal from the
>pwa? Looking at the SEM EDX, I agree with Stewart, that Si peak could be a
>misidentification issue.
>
>Dave
>
>
>
>Leland Woodall <[log in to unmask]> Sent by: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
>03/28/2012 10:26 AM
>Please respond to
>TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>; Please respond to Leland Woodall
><[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>To
><[log in to unmask]>
>cc
>
>Subject
>Re: [TN] Rework Concern and Question - SEM EDX Results Posted
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I've also added the SEM photos and EDX results to the folder at
>http://ipc-technet.groupsite.com/file_cabinet.
>
>Leland
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leland Woodall
>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:18 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [TN] Rework Concern and Question
>
>Everyone,
>
>Thanks for all your responses. To answer a few of the items brought up
>between yesterday afternoon and this morning:
>
>The solder did indeed reflow and formed what visually appear to be good
>joints. There is no evidence of dewetting or nonwets. I see no difference
>between the joints on the old versus the new components.
>
>The EDX analysis was performed on two leads of the old component and two
>leads of the new component. Both of the samples were taken directly out of
>the tape and reel packaging with tweezers, placed near each other on kapton
>tape upside down, and analyzed within minutes of each other. The old
>component returned two readings of 100% tin, the new component returned two
>readings of 98% tin and 2% silicon.
>
>When examined beneath a microscope at high magnification, the original part
>leads are somewhat dull and grainy in appearance on the bottom.
>The leads on the new component are very shiny and smooth.
>
>I've taken a few photos and posted them to
>http://ipc-technet.groupsite.com/gallery/22905.
>
>I'll look through the SEM results from yesterday and see if there's anything
>worth posting as well.
>
>Leland
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of vladimir Igoshev
>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:18 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [TN] Rework Concern and Question
>
>I'm getting more and more anxious to see how much that "guessing game"
>might contribute to finding the root cause. There are simply not enough data
>to solve the puzzle.
>
>Leland,
>
>If you don't have capabilities to do proper analysis, you can send samples
>to us.
>
>Regards,
>Vladimir
>
>SENTEC Testing Laboratory Inc.
>11 Canadian Road, Unit 7.
>Scarborough, ON M1R 5G1
>Tel: (416) 899-1882
>Fax: (905) 882-8812
>www.sentec.ca
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Amol Kane (Asteelflash,US)" <[log in to unmask]>
>Sender: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:36:43
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>,
> "Amol Kane (Asteelflash,US)"
> <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: [TN] Rework Concern and Question
>
>Leland,
>Have you tried preheating the assembly while doing the rework? If it?s a
>RoHS compliant laminate, you can preheat it to 120-130C and try the rework
>then.
>
>Amol Kane
>Process Engineer
>AsteelFlash US East Corp
>Tel: (607) 687.7669 x349 (O)
>www.asteelflash.com
>
>
>This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. It is intended for the
>recipient only. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
>immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the
>e-mail and all copies from your computer. Although the sender and
>AsteelFlash have taken every reasonable precaution, the e-mail and
>attachments may have some errors or omissions and may contain viruses.
>We cannot accept liability for any damage that you sustain as a result of
>that.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leland Woodall
>Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 5:03 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [TN] Rework Concern and Question
>
>Bob,
>
>At this point, we don't know what has happened nor how high we'll have to go
>to achieve release from the board. Thus far we've stayed within our set
>standards of 700 degrees F. We'll experiment tomorrow and should know
>something then.
>
>Gee, I'll never make a reference to 200C again. Learned my lesson on that
>one.
>
>Leland
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Kondner [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 4:24 PM
>To: 'TechNet E-Mail Forum'; Leland Woodall
>Subject: RE: [TN] Rework Concern and Question
>
>Leland,
>
> So you are suggesting Si defused into the solder and raised its melting
>point by 200C ?
>
> Did I get that right?
>
>Bob K.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leland Woodall
>Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 4:14 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [TN] Rework Concern and Question
>
>George,
>
>It's been a long day, and maybe I'm not making myself too clear.
>
>We're not being able to achieve a liquidus state with a 700 degree F
>soldering iron. We're not trying to melt the lead, just the solder that's
>holding it to the PCB. We're not accomplishing that with the new component,
>so I'm thinking something has mixed with the solder joint and has raised the
>resultant reflow temperature.
>
>Leland
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wenger, George M.
>Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 4:10 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [TN] Rework Concern and Question
>
>Leland,
>
>Am I missing something? I don't think it really matter that the lead base
>material or lead surface finish is. What matters is the solder used to
>attach the lead to the board. When you desolder a lead you don't melt the
>lead you melt the solder.
>
>Regards,
>George
>George M. Wenger
>Senior Principal Reliability / FMA Engineer Andrew Corporation - Wireless
>Network Solutions
>40 Technology Drive, Warren, NJ 07059
>(908) 546-4531 Office (732) 309-8964 Mobile
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David D. Hillman
>Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 4:05 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [TN] Rework Concern and Question
>
>Hi Leland - I recommend you find out the lead base metal composition. If you
>shot an SEM-EDS of the lead toe, you could be getting the Si from the base
>metal composition and not part of the solder alloy composition.
>
>Dave Hillman
>Rockwell Collins
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>Leland Woodall <[log in to unmask]> Sent by: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
>03/27/2012 02:52 PM
>Please respond to
>TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>; Please respond to Leland Woodall
><[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>To
><[log in to unmask]>
>cc
>
>Subject
>Re: [TN] Rework Concern and Question
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Vladimir,
>
>We analyzed raw components straight out of the tape and reel packaging.
>The site selection was on the bottom side of the leads at the toe.
>
>Leland
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of vladimir Igoshev
>Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 3:12 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [TN] Rework Concern and Question
>
>Sorry Ben, it doesn't.
>Leland,
>
>What you are saying sounds strange. What does it mean: "We've analyzed the
>lead material beneath the SEM and it returns 98% tin and 2% silicone"? Did
>you analyzed leads or solder? Where the analysis was taken from? Did you
>analyzed leads with pads ripped off?
>
>Regards,
>
>Vladimir
>
>SENTEC Testing Laboratory Inc.
>11 Canadian Road, Unit 7.
>Scarborough, ON M1R 5G1
>Tel: (416) 899-1882
>Fax: (905) 882-8812
>www.sentec.ca
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Gumpert, Ben" <[log in to unmask]>
>Sender: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:58:21
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>,
> "Gumpert, Ben"
> <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: [TN] Rework Concern and Question
>
>Leland,
>
>I won't claim to be an expert, but this website seems to imply something
>along those lines.
>http://resource.npl.co.uk/mtdata/phdiagrams/sisn.htm
>
>Ben
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leland Woodall
>Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:18 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: EXTERNAL: [TN] Rework Concern and Question
>
>Folks,
>
>We've ran across a strange incident and I'd like a little advice from the
>group.
>
>We recently underwent a component vendor change, and part of the first group
>of boards were misbuilt due to incorrect polarity (the part marking was
>misinterpreted by the vision operator).
>
>Anyway, an attempt to remove the part by our Repair group resulted in lifted
>pads on 10 of the first 12 boards. We've analyzed the lead material beneath
>the SEM and it returns 98% tin and 2% silicone. The old style component
>comes off quite easily (within 3 seconds), and an analysis of its leads
>shows to be 100% tin. It's a 6 pin diode with very little mass.
>
>What's going on here? Does a 2% silicone mix raise the melting point of
>solder by 200 degrees C?
>
>Please help me understand.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Leland
>
>________________________________
>
>?Confidentiality Notice:
>This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>information belonging to the sender and is intended only for the use of the
>party or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended
>recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
>distribution, retention or the taking of action in reliance on the contents
>of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and erase all
>information and attachments.?
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>________________________________
>
>?Confidentiality Notice:
>This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>information belonging to the sender and is intended only for the use of the
>party or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended
>recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
>distribution, retention or the taking of action in reliance on the contents
>of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and erase all
>information and attachments.?
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>________________________________
>
>?Confidentiality Notice:
>This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>information belonging to the sender and is intended only for the use of the
>party or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended
>recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
>distribution, retention or the taking of action in reliance on the contents
>of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and erase all
>information and attachments.?
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>________________________________
>
>?Confidentiality Notice:
>This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>information belonging to the sender and is intended only for the use of the
>party or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended
>recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
>distribution, retention or the taking of action in reliance on the contents
>of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and erase all
>information and attachments.?
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>________________________________
>
>?Confidentiality Notice:
>This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>information belonging to the sender and is intended only for the use of the
>party or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended
>recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
>distribution, retention or the taking of action in reliance on the contents
>of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and erase all
>information and attachments.?
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>________________________________
>
>?Confidentiality Notice:
>This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>information belonging to the sender and is intended only for the use of the
>party or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended
>recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
>distribution, retention or the taking of action in reliance on the contents
>of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and erase all
>information and attachments.?
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
>For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
|
