 
| Received: |
by ipchq.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0t5cN9-0000HxC; Wed, 18 Oct 95 12:33 CDT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Wed, 18 Oct 95 12:35:30 EDT |
| Precedence: |
list |
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 15: |
06:31 1996 |
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"O2zaJ1.0.JY3.reJXm"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Resent-From: |
|
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
FROM: I. MEMIS, DEPT GGMG/BLDG 257-4, AISLE A, ENDICOTT
*** Resending note of 10/18/95 09:03
ENDICOTT ELECTRONIC PACKAGING
SUBJECT: NO SUBJECT
=========================================================================
=========================================================================
>The group that was suppose to rewrite this method had suggested that
>this method be CANCELED.
>
>Any comments from the membership?
Perhaps, the group should consider using an electrical test method
similar to the activity in the post separation task group instead of
eliminating the test method.
Irv Memis
.
QUIT
|
|
|
