easy peasy.
move the test limits. ;-)
At 11:06 AM 3/29/2012, Stadem, Richard D. wrote:
>I agree with you, Dwight. But again, it is easily possible to
>accomplish the first, and not the other.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dwight Mattix
>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:57 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [TN] Does YOUR company ever screw up rework?
>
>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]
>______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
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]
______________________________________________________________________
|
