TECHNET Archives

1996

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
X-mailer:
Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22)
Sender:
<EPPERSON@[138.32.59.15]>
Old-Return-Path:
<simon.ipc.org!nntp.onramp.net!efw![138.32.59.15]!EPPERSON>
Date:
Tue, 9 Jul 1996 09:04:04 +0000
Precedence:
list
Resent-From:
Resent-Sender:
TechNet-request [log in to unmask]
X-Status:
Status:
O
Priority:
normal
From [log in to unmask] Tue Jul 9 18:
32:42 1996
TO:
Return-Path:
<TechNet-request>
X-Loop:
Resent-Message-ID:
<"KKC5N.0.bJ6.sTfun"@ipc>
Subject:
From:
X-Mailing-List:
<[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/5030
Received:
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0udgdL-0000D5C; Tue, 9 Jul 96 12:31 CDT
X-Confirm-Reading-To:
Message-Id:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (13 lines)
Has anyone performed a detailed comparison analysis or a cross 
reference matrix  between the acceptance criteria of  IPC-A-610B
and MIL-STD-2000A?

Thanks, 
Dan

The mail list is provided 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. 



ATOM RSS1 RSS2