From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #59 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Monday, September 7 1998 Volume 07 : Number 059 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: Korean Satellite Re: Ritter Re: F/A-18E/F Role Secure In Future Carrier Wings Re: Vindicator Re: Invincible Menace Re: Vindicator RE: Lockheed lost its superior technological touch ? Re: This and that Re: Vindicator the results are in Re: the results are in Re: the results are in RE: Weather Balloon RE: Reason to keep the SR down... and more Darkstar re: RE: Reason to keep the SR down etc Re: Seven square miles surrounded by reality. *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 19:35:06 -0500 From: Dave Bethke Subject: RE: Korean Satellite A story on Associated Press said, in part -- ......according to the North's official Korean Central News Agency, Monday's launch was of a three-stage, domestically developed rocket that sent a satellite into orbit. The timing and sites where the first two stages of the rockets fell coincide with the American and Japanese reports for what they described as a ballistic missile. ``Our scientists and technicians have succeeded in launching the first artificial satellite aboard a multistage rocket into orbit,'' KCNA said. .............. The North's news agency said the satellite would ``contribute to promoting scientific research for peaceful use of outer space'' and would be useful in confirming calculations for future ``practical satellites.'' The satellite, it added, ``is now transmitting the melody of the immortal revolutionary hymns `song of General Kim Il Sung' and `Song of General Kim Jong Il' and the Morse signals `Juche Korea' in 27MHZ.'' ............ Although 27 mhz is on most consumer shortwave radios, it would take some time and a lot of luck to hear it. - -- Dave Bethke - on the fringe of Houston (SGR) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Sep 98 02:25:18 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Ritter On 9/4/98 6:01AM, in message <05256675.00478F71.00@notesmail.fw.hac.com>, "Tom C Robison" wrote: > > I suppose this is old news, however... > > As Art indicated a few deays ago, U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter has > resigned his position, citing lack of resolve by the U.S. and the U.N > security > council. > > Read all about it in the September 7 issue of U.S. News and World Report. > > Just got back, got some catching up to do. Mr. Ritter has been interviewed a number of times now, and has testified before Congress. He says it is beyond a lack of resolve, it's actual obstruction. Administration has already started smear campaign. Madeline Albright says he doesn't have the "big picture". Kinda hard to believe given that he's been there on the job for seven years. Stories have been planted and State has said he has an agenda because he's been leaking sensitive information to the Israelis, which of course he adamantly and specifically denies. He is moe credible, even discounting the Administration's record on honesty if you ask one question: "If we knew he was leaking that kind of information to the Israelis, why was he still on the job until his resignation, instead of in jail? Why is he walking the streets now"? Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Sep 98 03:07:23 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F/A-18E/F Role Secure In Future Carrier Wings On 9/1/98 1:09PM, in message , Martin Hurst wrote: > An article in this weeks AW&ST details out the Super-Duper-Hornet > "Super Hornet will provide mission planners with more operational > flexibility and room for growth." > Read on ... > http://www.awgnet.com/aviation/avi_stor.htm > > ... no I'm not skeptical ... > --------------------------- > -Martin Hurst > I realize this isn't really Skunky (well, they say the E/F has a small reduction in radar return from the front, so maybe it can be stretched to fit), but I'd like to comment because the tactic used here is something you can be aware of when you see other things being praised or panned. This was a classic case of Hornet Hijinks. First, keep in mind that David North has an aviation magazine to put out. One thing Washington has learned is that you can really influence what appears in the news by granting or withholding access. I'm not implying that Mr. North is in any way less than scrupulously honest. However, to get to have an exclusive like that, you aren't going to question the gift horse too much. Nothing he was told was less than 100% accurate. It was just carefully selected. Here, however, is, as Paul Harvey says, "The Rest of the Story". Notice how all comparisons and promises of improvements were only made in relation to older F/A-18s. Comparisons of capability of the Super Hornet vs. evolved F-14Ds were not made when the, "...more operational flexibility and room for growth" statements were formulated. And Especially no comparisons with France's Rafale carrier strike fighter would be made as that aircraft is way beyond the Super Hornet. The statement in the article of 3,000 lbs. more bringback is basically correct. What isn't mentioned is that promised 3,000 lbs. in 2001 is only 500 pounds more than what the F-14D was doing 10 years before for $5-6 billion less. It also isn't noted that that bringback is 7,500 lbs. Less than what the next version of the Tomcat would have done (had we chosen to go that route), for less than half the R&D. In fact, that 3,000 lbs. really isn't 3,000 lbs. when you look at the numbers for current Hornet C/Ds, and less than what C/Ds could do if their landing gear was beefed up. That's the other tricky part, current C/Ds. The talk about the E/F being so agile seems suspicious given that the Navy is already telling pilots to lower their expectations when the E/F enters the fleet. The giveaway is in the comparison data that DoD/Navy gave Mr. North comparing the Hornet C with the Hornet E. It cites a sea level thrust for the E of 44,000 lbs and the C as 32,000 lb. That means they are using Block XII or earlier Hornet Cs for comparison. Those Hornets were what we were acquiring in the late 80s, early 90s, and were known to have agility problems. The Hornet Cs we've been building for years have a number of agility improvements. More importantly at sea level, .8 Mach, the E has thrust of 44,798 (2% better than the Navy said), but the C has thrust not of 32,000 lb, but of 38,694 (21% better than the Navy said). What they said wasn't untrue, it simply was misleading. Comparing Hornet E/Fs vs. Current C/Ds, we find that the C has a better thrust to weight ratio than the E, more specific excess power, turns tighter, accelerates much better, etc. There is mention of the extra two stations on the wing and using them for air-to-surface weapons such as HARM. Again, nothing untrue was said. But, while it's true that you can Carry HARM on these new stations, you can't Launch HARM from these new stations because of clearance requirements. Given how much the E/F is costing without even questioning the unrealistic R&D and procurement cost numbers, it's not surprising that not all the information is provided unless someone specifically asks (What do you think happens to the trumpeted range imporovement of the E/F when you hang a couple of the E/F's 480 gallon tanks under the wings of a C/D?). Again, not too skunky, but illustrative of how the "Game" is played. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:16:58 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: Vindicator Lord, forgive me for mentioning this, because I ... DO NOT ... want to give credence to the rumours of a "B-3 Vindicator." There was a Lockheed Skunk Works project called VINDICATOR in the 1980s. I don't know what it was because the people I have met who worked on it wouldn't talk about it. The project patch featured the Lockheed Skunk wearing a leather flying cap and white scarf, and holding a white lightning bolt. It had an orange border, light blue background, and the word VINDICATOR in orange letters. Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:40:13 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: Invincible Menace The story of the CF/A-18s trying to shoot down the weather balloon reminds me of another similar incident. Following WWII, a number of Grumman F6F Hellcats were converted to target drones. On 16 August 1956, one of these radio-controlled Hellcats was launched from NAS Point Mugu for a missile test. Shortly after takeoff, radio contact was lost. Instead of crashing into the Pacific Ocean, the drone turned inland, and headed for Los Angeles. The Navy called Oxnard AFB, and asked if they could send any of the fighters on alert there to intercept the runaway drone. That must have sorely tested Navy pride to ask the Air Force to bail them out of an embarassing situation. No doubt the Air Force alert crews were aching for a little action, and a chance to show the Navy boys their stuff. Two F-89 Scorpions took off from Oxnard in pursuit of the wayward Hellcat. As the unmanned, unarmed, obsolete Navy fighter drifted further inland, the interceptors closed in for the kill. The Scorpions made three attack runs, firing 209 rockets. They missed. The drone continued on without a scratch. Live ornance rained down on the communities of Castaic, Newhall, and Palmdale. Cars and homes were damaged. Fires were ignited in the Angeles National Forest. Miraculously, no one was hurt. A few minutes later, the F6F crashed in an open field in a sparsely poplated area east of Palmdale Airport. It was a day that would live in infamy. Some wreckage of the Hellcat still remains at the crash site. It is just as desolate and unpopulated now as it was then. Peter W. Merlin THE X-HUNTERS Aerospace Archeology Team ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1998 11:37:48 -0700 From: "Dwight D. Thibodeaux" Subject: Re: Vindicator Pete, I think you sketched it out on paper and gave me a copy. I still have the sketch and have never seen anything like it. I heard from someone who recently took a tour of the Skunk Works that many of the workers have various UFO posters, etc. in their cubicles. It's the big inside joke - turned around on the true believers. Dwight Xelex@aol.com wrote: > Lord, forgive me for mentioning this, because I ... DO NOT ... want to give > credence to the rumours of a "B-3 Vindicator." > > There was a Lockheed Skunk Works project called VINDICATOR in the 1980s. I > don't know what it was because the people I have met who worked on it wouldn't > talk about it. > > The project patch featured the Lockheed Skunk wearing a leather flying cap and > white scarf, and holding a white lightning bolt. It had an orange border, > light blue background, and the word VINDICATOR in orange letters. > > Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 15:44:28 +0100 From: Gavin Payne Subject: RE: Lockheed lost its superior technological touch ? Do we know it was Lockheed who were making the Aurora? Gavin - -------------- Gavin Payne, UK G.Payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk - -------------- - -----Original Message----- From: betnal@ns.net [SMTP:betnal@ns.net] Sent: 27 August 1998 07:23 To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: Lockheed lost its superior technological touch ? On 8/26/98 10:24PM, in message <35E4ED91.3178@topflight.net>, Ryan Kirk wrote: > Why the sudden gloomy downturn on the list? Doesn't anyone have faith > anymore in the Skunk Works? > > On a semi-related note... > > Art said: > > >Secretary of Defense Cohen publicly stated that they had to wait days for > weather > >to clear before satellites could provide information on whether the missile > >strikes worked. This is another indication that there probably ins't a SR-71 > >replacement around. If there was, they could have used it and made the > >assessments without disclosing what information they had and how they got it. > > Did I miss something here? This seems like a jump in logic. It could > mean this just as easily as it could mean that he's lying and they > didn't really use satellites at all, but instead used Aurora. Because if they did, they could use the "Aurora" data and either trumpet out "great success", answer some questions or immediately order a restrike if necessary. The world would think the data came from satellites, and we wouldn't dissuade them from thinking so. "Aurora's" secret would be safe. The fact that with all the intense interest on this it was days before we were able to say anything about how we did lends credence to the argument that there wasn't any "Aurora" to use. > How can > you be positive he's telling the truth? > Why lie? > Also, what are the "other indications" that there isn't a SR-71 > replacement? > Primarily the lack of rapid response data from defended areas. The great efforts we go though to look at certain areas. If there was some Operational super-duper system, some of this ancillary effort would be toned down. How far off our estimates were on Iranian and N. Korean long range missile development (and how, even though satellite or HUMINT intel told us when the Iranian test was going to be we couldn't apparently couldn't get the data we wanted because someone goofed on assigning Cobra Ball). Congressional actions by those with stratospheric clearances. The fact that if you wanted to hide "Aurora", you'd want to play up the SR-71 as a cover, not sabotage it. And so on. Gosh! I'd love to be wrong. I have no doubt that we're testing some things that are deeply classified. But it doesn't seem that those things are in service. They may just all be R&D or technology demonstration. Or, given the way the wind blows, they may not be recon vehicles at all, simply because tactical recon doesn not enjoy that high a priority. > Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 14:00:51 -0700 From: "A.J. Craddock" Subject: Re: This and that At 09:42 AM 8/3/98 -0700, David Lednicer wrote: > > In regard to the SR-71/YF-12/A-12's top speed, a friend inside the >SW tells me that the world's fastest air breathing man is Darryl >Greenamyer, who did M=3.6 on a test flight. The fastest air breathing >woman is Marta Bohn-Meyer, who flies back seat in the NASA SR-71s. I >don't know what her personal fastest is, but it can't be much more than >M=3.2. > > Yes, JSF is on the floor at the SW, but so is Darkstar and JASSM. > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" >Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com >2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (425) 643-9090 >Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (425) 746-1299 > > Funny, I always thought Ben Johnson (or Donovan Bailey) and Florence Griffith-Joyner were the world's fastest human air-breathers! Tony Craddock ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 14:08:24 -0700 From: Ryan Kirk Subject: Re: Vindicator Who is this and what kind of tour were they on? The engineering and office buildings (the two that are by the "statue" of the F-117) have very high clearance requirements; i.e., only employees are allowed inside, and even then all sorts of identifications are necessary. Even on my private tour the only building we were allowed inside was the hangar they were modifying the C-130's in. So how did they get inside any building that would have a cubicle in it? Ryan ____________________________________________________________ Ryan Kirk Website Architect Topflight Productions http://www.topflight.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 22:50:23 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: the results are in Message-ID: <35F30DF8.377F@topflight.net> Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 15:35:25 -0700 From: Ryan Kirk Reply-To: ryan@topflight.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: the results are in Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think it's been long enough to post the results of the vote, as the number of votes from skunk-works slows down to a trickle and the number of votes from skunk-works-digest begin to pour in. These percentages are all from voters that subscribe to skunk-works; in other words, these are only the results from people who were notified of the vote by the direct-mail version of the list and not from the people who receive the digest only. There is one question that I need to clarify; it asked, "Do you believe in UFO's?" Over time the term UFO has gained the connotation of "alien spacecraft," and that is the definition I had in mind when I wrote the question. However, as one of you noted, UFO does in fact stand for "unidentified flying object," and therefore, under the strictest definition of the term, Aurora would qualify as a UFO. Although in a more exact study this would pose a problem -- because some of might have interpreted the question to mean alien spacecraft, and some might have interpreted it to mean unidentified flying objects -- I think that in this relatively small setting, the question was generally understood to be what I intended. Although the question was a little ambiguous, I think we all knew what it meant. The following results are compiled from 21 responses, which occurred between Tuesday, September 1, 1998 at 18:59:39 and Tuesday, September 1, 1998 at 18:59:39. Two other respondents said they were not very knowledgeable. Both of these answered "yes" to both questions (does Aurora exist, and do UFOs exist). I thank these people for their honesty (you know who you are). However, the percentages are composed entirely of semi-knowledgeable and very knowledgeable responses. The first question was, "Do you believe Aurora exists?" 76.2% answered yes 23.8% answered no Of those who answered yes, 81.25% believe in UFOs, and 18.75% don't believe in UFO's Of those who answered no, 40.0% believe in UFOs, and 80.0% don't believe in UFO's. As you can see, the most common opinion was a belief in the existence of both Aurora and UFO's. The second most common opinion was that neither existed. Most people generally seemed to agree with my opinion that the word "conspiracy" is probably too harsh of a word for what we're talking about, or that the word should not carry such negative connotations. Among some of the more interesting excerpts from the opinion box: "I don't believe a conspiracy exists in the popular sense of the term. Top Secret and Secret programmes must be protected from unauthorised personnel. That's what's happening here. Nothing illegal --frustrating for researchers and those who see these things for sure, but illegal - no." - -------------------- "some things that may look like a conspiracy are really just incompetance." - -------------------- "Gov. conspiracies exist to cover up incompetence and malfeasance." - -------------------- " I think back to a wings episode a few months back when they were discussing the first B-47 (I believe)overflights of the Soviet Union. Three people were asked how many times this occured. The first answer was from a US military officer..."I can't tell you.". The second answer was from an aviation historian..."I don't know exactly but it was more than ten and less than 100.". The last one to be asked was a russian general..."I can tell you exactly, 54!" So who are the secrets being kept from?" - -------------------- "I think there is an AF conspiracy to keep the SR from coming back!" And then, of course, there are the emails that a few of us (including me) posted to the list. So those are the results. The only thing I was surprised by was the number of people that believed in UFOs, I thought it would be lower. Thank you all for participating in the vote, I think it helps shed some light on what we all really belive. Ryan ____________________________________________________________ Ryan Kirk Website Architect Topflight Productions http://www.topflight.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 20:01:52 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: the results are in At 10:50 PM 9/6/98 GMT, Ryan Kirk wrote: > >I think it's been long enough to post the results of the vote....... > > > >There is one question that I need to clarify; it asked, "Do you >believe >in UFO's?" Over time the term UFO has gained the connotation of >"alien >spacecraft," and that is the definition I had in mind when I wrote the >question..... > Although the question was a little ambiguous, I >think we all knew what it meant. > > > >The following results are compiled from 21 responses....... > Two other respondents said they were not very >knowledgeable.......However, the percentages are composed >entirely of semi-knowledgeable and very knowledgeable responses. > > >81.25% believe in UFOs, and >18.75% don't believe in UFO's > > > >40.0% believe in UFOs, and >80.0% don't believe in UFO's. > > > >Thank you all for participating in the vote, I think it helps shed >some >light on what we all really belive. > - ------------------------------------------------- I would argue that the discussion of "alien spacecraft" is a topic well known to be off limits on this newslist. Black aircraft sightings have been previously agreed to be a legitimate topic due to their nature. It would be hard to argue black aircraft are not born of the Skunk Works or any of their competitors. patrick cullumber ps: please don't email me anymore to ask for an apology. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 08:49:08 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: the results are in Ryan Kirk write: >........So those are the results. The only thing I was surprised by was >the number of people that believed in UFOs, I thought it would be lower. Thanks for an interesting poll Ryan. However, I think you'll find most of this list's members would take a very pragmatic line on the defn. of the dreaded UFO acronym. If it's in the air and appears to be flying; it's a you know what, until you indentify it, so black a/c would indeed come into that catagory. If you re-phrased the question to include ETs I think you'd have a totally different data set...Occam's Razor and all that stuff. I'd have to change my vote. Best David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 09:10:31 +0930 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: Weather Balloon > > Hey Wei-Jen........your balloon has landed. > > It came down finally on a small island off the NW coast of > Finland. Art > will love this part. The Royal Canuck AF sent some of their > CF/A-18's > after it. No fire breathing stuff but they expended over a > thousand rounds > of gunfire at the invincible menace. When it moved into the > air traffic > channels over the N. Atlantic they were guiding traffic 125 > miles north or > south of the thing. > > You can put your SR homebuilt back in your garage. > Australian humour took its own potshots at the incident with this ... "Just put an American millionaire aboard. It will come down in no time ... " And this one (be warned!) "Apparently the Canadians are now designing their weather balloons in the shape of baby harp seals. Now if one gets away, they'll be able club it to death ..." Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 09:30:02 +0930 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: Reason to keep the SR down... and more Darkstar > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Hurst [mailto:mhurst@voice-tel.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 4:09 AM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: RE: Reason to keep the SR down... and more Darkstar While the discussion of intelligence, SR and the US missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan have apparently run their course here, allow me to add one more update tidbit. The Weekend Australian reported in its IT section last weekend a story about gathering intelligence by whatever means, with an obvious IT angle. According to a named intelligence officer for one of Australia's agencies, Australia obtains fifty to 75 percent of intelligence via OSI - open source information - which is readily available to anyone, while the remaining percent is via "clandestine means." They actively use the Internet, going so far to publicly state that information about current crisis' in Africa and Asia was obtained from public web sites because their resources were books "more than 15 years old." Unfortunately the article is not on their website ( http://www.theaustralian.com.au/ ). Maybe the US intelligence community should read the Geocities website more often ... :) Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 12:37:38 +1200 (NZST) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: re: RE: Reason to keep the SR down etc >Maybe the US intelligence community should read the Geocities website more >often ... :) funny you should mention this..just last week I read a news article in which a US intelligence or DoD offcial was trying to explain why he had initially categorically stated that no medicines were manufactured in the Sudanese plant. When it clearly turned out he was wrong he gave an answer like, "but it wasn't on the parent chemical company's website when we checked!" K ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Sep 98 01:50:00 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Seven square miles surrounded by reality. On 8/31/98 9:45AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19980831094553.0076ab10@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > At 09:44 AM 8/31/98 -0600, you wrote: > >betnal@ns.net wrote: > > > >> Remember, one of the best definitions of Washington is, "7 square > miles > >> surrounded by reality". > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------------- > > Ya'll seem to know a lot about jets but don't seem to know much about life > inside the Beltway. In which case I would argue conversely a reality, > albeit a separate reality exists there. Patrick, Just got around to your post. For the record, I deal with D.C. all the time... You realize you and I are basically saying the same thing, except I don't see it as being as sinister or thought out as you do. There's little difference between Washington, or State Governments or Academia, or even some large corporations (except that they can go out of business). The biggest difference is that D.C. is more remote than the others from the population it serves (although a good case can be made that Academia is the most removed from its product), can print money and has an army. In a lot of D.C., what happens outside the Beltway isn't real to them. Only what goes on inside is what they can relate to. Hence the cliche (that I repeated, not originated). It's how they appear to others in the Beltway that becomes the driver. Here's an example: Boeing says it ins't interested in its commercial helicopter line. It offers it up for sale. There's little interest, except for Bell helicopter who says it'll take on everything except the Model 900. Much hoopla, MDD helicopters is saved. Some cops in Arizona, though, are afraid Bell won't really support the existing MDD fleet, which these cops fly. Impulsively, they make the mistake of going to the Government first, instead of last resort. FTC decides to launch a crusade and blocks Bell buy for foreseeable future. Problem is, no one else in U.S. was interested. MDD Helos suddenly is on verge of going belly-up, much of the network had been dismantled prepatory to Bell taking over. NOw, likelihood of No support for MDD helos. Meanwhile cops in Arizona look further into situation and realize Bell was going to do full support and market and develop MDD models. They go to Government and say they were wrong and would FTC please back off. It's too late. The fact that the actions the FTC is taking to save MDD helos clearly will probably destroy it are considered a factor. The Government has a Policy on this, and That's what's important, not what might actually happen. Best hope right now is that if no one else show interest, FTC may let Bell buy after all. Of course, Bell may no longer be interested. Europeans may buy, but that moves the jobs and technology overseas. This also isn't what the FTC is really set up for, to export jobs and technology, but that's not a consideration. The Policy is preserved and others in the Beltway see that the FTC has a lot of power. Not too skunky, I grant you, but the attitude is the same when it comes to skunky projects (SR-71, Darkstar, etc.). This ties in with what I said about "Aurora"; If it exists and is operational, but everything it does is so classified that it can't be used or disseminated, then it's of little value and we need something we can use. This seems intuitively obvious, but Not Inside Washington... Art > ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #59 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner