 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0v2luM-0000QPC; Mon, 16 Sep 96 17:12 CDT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 16 Sep 1996 17:20:51 +600 CDT |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| From [log in to unmask] Tue Sep 17 08: |
36:21 1996 |
| TO: |
|
| X-Confirm-Reading-To: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| Cc: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"Igiph3.0._II.X3TFo"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| X-Mailer: |
Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) |
| Priority: |
normal |
| Organization: |
CompuRoute, Inc. |
| Message-Id: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Address,
Thanks for the responses on the Wet Lamination Questions. Here's
the second part: Most Automated Cut sheet laminators I've come
across are Dry Lamination versus Wet. Does anyone run a Cut Sheet
Laminator using the Wet Lamination process or are all Automated Cut
Sheet Laminators Dry Lamination? It would explain why the overwelming
responses did not use Wet, if the last statement is true. Please advise.
Thanks
John Gulley
***************************************************************************
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 *
***************************************************************************
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to: *
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text. *
***************************************************************************
|
|
|
