From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #5 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 Friday, January 22 1999 Volume 08 : Number 005 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Supersonic F-4? New ballistic missile defense system Re: New ballistic missile defense system Re: New ballistic missile defense system Re[2]: New ballistic missile defense system Nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and airplanes Re: Nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and airplanes Re: New ballistic missile defense system Re: New ballistic missile defense system Re: Nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and airplanes [none] Re: WW II German bomb project (was: something else) Re: WW II German bomb project *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 18:04:21 -0800 From: David Lednicer Subject: Supersonic F-4? > So, as I understand you David, what you're saying, is that you believe > the condensation areas are compression shocks, not expansion shocks? > > And therefore, since there is no compression shock at the nose, > therefore, this is a classic case of transonic flow? Thanks for comments - they caused me to stop and think some more about what we are seeing. I even went and pulled out an old AIAA paper 88-0191 "Observation of Airplane Flowfields by Natural Condensation Effects". This was reprinted in the July 1989 AIAA Journal of Aircraft. The F-4 picture shows up as Fig. 7b in this paper. Yes, the condensation occurs in the expansion waves. The back end of the condensation region occurs where the shock is. Since there are regions of the aircraft lacking condensation, they are subsonic and the aircraft then can itself assumed to be going subsonic. The paper also includes a picture of a F-14 going M=.9. The condensation cloud here is bigger, but positioned much like on the F-4. Based upon this, I stand by my guess that the F-4 is going somewhere between M=.8 and .9. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:46:44 -0800 From: patrick Subject: New ballistic missile defense system Lets talk ballistic missile defense....... No sooner does Bill give the Joint Chiefs 6 billion dollars (no small chunk of change!) to buy more bullets, petroleum products and pay raises for the grunts the Pentagon announces it is beginning to create a 12.5 billion dollar anti-ballistic missile defense system to protect us from.....if you can believe this, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, various ex Soviet provinces, etc..... 1. Do we really believe N. Korea is working their butts off to build a 3 stage rocket with maybe a small nuclear device attached so they can finally lob one into our backyard? Are they really trying hard, thinking "God, if we can only launch one device and hit Seattle it would be so cool!!!" After all surely even they understand the power of retribution we are capable of unleashing. I just don't see any logic in this threat whatever. I realize they are building a device but do we understand why they are doing it? 2. We don't have a real good track record in this area. The THAAP testing going on at White Sands becomes more dismal with each failing test there. The intercepts are just not happening. I'm sure the SCUD busters stationed just down the road at Ft. Bliss are looking over their shoulders and commenting "At least we hit something once in awhile." 3. What systems do they actually intend on employing.....and whatever it is they claim the system will be online in 2005. With such a quick installation can we then assume more money will need to be thrown into the breach to meet the deadline? 4. Whatever became of our agreement not to implent an ABM system? We had developed a Sprint missile system which had to be junked per an agreement with the Soviets. Of course the Reagan administration was not letting this impede progress on their Star Wars programs. 5. And was it not concluded that Star Wars was not going to be efficient enough to prevent a lethal number of nuclear warheads from successfully penetrating its barriers? So somehow now we are able to prevent a handful of incoming ICBM's so therefore its a rational thing to do? This may make sense but I really hope we aren't spending bazillions of dollars for a system that is inherently flawed while we are all told it works fine. And all the while the AF's Space Boy's are whispering to each other "As long as we never launch, the public will feel warm and fuzzy and therefore we did our job". It would be much cheaper to bang two sticks together and tell people it prevents missiles from landing here. Any answers? Guesses? patrick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:22:30 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: New ballistic missile defense system >Lets talk ballistic missile defense....... > >No sooner does Bill give the Joint Chiefs 6 billion dollars (no small chunk >of change!) to buy more bullets, petroleum products and pay raises for the >grunts the Pentagon announces it is beginning to create a 12.5 billion >dollar anti-ballistic missile defense system to protect us from.....if you >can believe this, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, various ex Soviet >provinces, etc..... > >1. Do we really believe N. Korea is working their butts off to build a 3 >stage rocket with maybe a small nuclear device attached so they can finally >lob one into our backyard? Are they really trying hard, thinking "God, if >we can only launch one device and hit Seattle it would be so cool!!!" Actually, yes, in the case of North Korea. Their Dear Leader doesn't quite have all of his marbles, and he has quite the love/hate relationship with all things American. His regime continue to remind his epople that they have been at war with the South and the US for quite some time, he continues to send SOF into the South (with many embrassing results as of late), and in the '80s North Korea butchered several US service men with axes without provocation. Despite sanctions, inspections, treaties, etc. they continue the development of weapons of mass destruction, export them in exchange for oil and hard currency, and have maintained a state of war since the DPRK's inception. North Korea is a very serious threat indeed. Don't forget the "demonstation" a few months ago- their attempt to orbit a satellite, more or less a public show of their delivery capabilities. >After all surely even they understand the power of retribution we are >capable of unleashing. I just don't see any logic in this threat >whatever. I realize they are building a device but do we understand why >they are doing it? Do THEY know why they are doing it? > >4. Whatever became of our agreement not to implent an ABM system? We had >developed a Sprint missile system which had to be junked per an agreement >with the Soviets. Of course the Reagan administration was not letting this >impede progress on their Star Wars programs. The agreement was not a blanket ban on ABM systems- the Russians still employ them (as best they can these days). There were restrictions on how many systems and where (100, North Dakota, I beleive), but not a blanket ban on ABM systems. > >5. And was it not concluded that Star Wars was not going to be efficient >enough to prevent a lethal number of nuclear warheads from successfully >penetrating its barriers? It did suceed, like the F-117, in making the opposition take billions of dollars to catch up and/or develop counter-technology, which ended up essentially bankrupting the regime and making them less of a threat. Star Wars,a nd other factors, not only lead to the sorry state of the Strategic Rocket Forces today, but prompted some of the START talks resulting in less nukes to worry about. I'd say it was effective in reducing the threat, wouldn't you? Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you outthink Marketing (while making less money), induce migraines at Microsoft, and create animated, stereo, 3-D , interactive About Boxes.It deservess the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 07:28:34 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: New ballistic missile defense system > Lets talk ballistic missile defense....... > > No sooner does Bill give the Joint Chiefs 6 billion dollars (no small chunk > of change!) to buy more bullets, petroleum products and pay raises for the > grunts the Pentagon announces it is beginning to create a 12.5 billion > dollar anti-ballistic missile defense system to protect us from.....if you > can believe this, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, various ex Soviet > provinces, etc..... > > 1. Do we really believe N. Korea is working their butts off to build a 3 > stage rocket with maybe a small nuclear device attached so they can finally > lob one into our backyard? Are they really trying hard, thinking "God, if > we can only launch one device and hit Seattle it would be so cool!!!" > After all surely even they understand the power of retribution we are > capable of unleashing. I just don't see any logic in this threat > whatever. I realize they are building a device but do we understand why > they are doing it? > > 2. We don't have a real good track record in this area. The THAAP testing > going on at White Sands becomes more dismal with each failing test there. > The intercepts are just not happening. I'm sure the SCUD busters stationed > just down the road at Ft. Bliss are looking over their shoulders and > commenting "At least we hit something once in awhile." > > 3. What systems do they actually intend on employing.....and whatever it > is they claim the system will be online in 2005. With such a quick > installation can we then assume more money will need to be thrown into the > breach to meet the deadline? > > 4. Whatever became of our agreement not to implent an ABM system? We had > developed a Sprint missile system which had to be junked per an agreement > with the Soviets. Of course the Reagan administration was not letting this > impede progress on their Star Wars programs. > > 5. And was it not concluded that Star Wars was not going to be efficient > enough to prevent a lethal number of nuclear warheads from successfully > penetrating its barriers? So somehow now we are able to prevent a handful > of incoming ICBM's so therefore its a rational thing to do? This may make > sense but I really hope we aren't spending bazillions of dollars for a > system that is inherently flawed while we are all told it works fine. And > all the while the AF's Space Boy's are whispering to each other "As long as > we never launch, the public will feel warm and fuzzy and therefore we did > our job". It would be much cheaper to bang two sticks together and tell > people it prevents missiles from landing here. > > Any answers? Guesses? > > patrick > Our very dear friend Adolf Hitler would have nuked us during WWII if he had nukes and the means to deliver them. In fact Germany was developing nuclear weapons and long range balistic missiles and was close to being done. Saddam Hussein would have nuked us as well if he had the opportunity and if he though he might get away with it. The main problem with the proliferation of NBC weapons is that more and more countries that do not play by the rules are acquiring them. The threat from our former cold war enemies is still present and will remain for the foreseeable future, however the emerging threat from rogue nations is ever-increasing. The only way to defend against such threats is to develop effective defenses against balistic missiles as well as other means of delivering weapons of mass destruction. North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, Cuba and many other countries would not hesitate to attack us with WMD without provocation. The principle of mutually assured destruction means nothing to them. International terrorism also seems to be on the rise and the US and it's allies seem to be the most convenient targets. Incidentally, 6billion is peanuts! It is simply not enough! Our military is in a very sorry state right now and we are extremely vulnerable -- let's hope our enemies do not know this. Sam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 99 09:15:20 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[2]: New ballistic missile defense system You can bet that every nation or terrorist who wants to know the state of our military knows everything they want to, thanks to FOI and the Internet. Greg W. Our military is in a very sorry state right now and we are extremely vulnerable - -- let's hope our enemies do not know this. Sam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 23:02:32 +0100 From: "Stefan Dornbusch" Subject: Nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and airplanes This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BE4592.209303C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > In fact Germany was developing nuclear weapons and long range=20 > balistic missiles and was close to being done. I know the V-2, the world's first ballistic missile and I know the Me-262, the world's first operational jet fighter (ahead of the Skunk Works! - you can see one in the NASM in DC), but there=20 is no evidence that Germany was developing a nuclear bomb. Stefan Dornbusch from Germany P.S. There were a lot of amazing airplanes on the drawing boards of some German engineers during the last days of WWII. You can buy them as model planes - one was a B-2 like bomber to strike=20 New York. But then the war had ended (thank God) and then=20 came the Skunk Works... - ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BE4592.209303C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sam Kaltsidis wrote:

> In fact Germany was developing nuclear weapons and long = range=20
> balistic missiles and was close to being done.
 
I know the V-2, the world's first ballistic missile and I know = the
Me-262, the world's first operational jet fighter (ahead of = the
Skunk Works! - you can see one in the NASM in DC), but there
is no evidence that Germany was developing a nuclear bomb.
 
Stefan Dornbusch from Germany
 
P.S. There were a lot of amazing airplanes on the drawing = boards
of some German engineers during the last days of WWII. You = can
buy them as model planes - one was a B-2 like bomber to strike =
New York. But then the war had ended (thank God) and then
came the Skunk Works...
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BE4592.209303C0-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:01:46 -0800 (PST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and airplanes On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Stefan Dornbusch wrote: > Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > > In fact Germany was developing nuclear weapons and long range > > balistic missiles and was close to being done. > > I know the V-2, the world's first ballistic missile and I know the > Me-262, the world's first operational jet fighter (ahead of the > Skunk Works! - you can see one in the NASM in DC), but there > is no evidence that Germany was developing a nuclear bomb. The German were in fact developing nuclear bomb during WWII. There is some evidence about this. Like the heavy water industry based in Finland or some of those countries during WWII. I heard that the Jewish that work for the nazis to develop nuclear bomb passed vital informations to the American during WWII. Also, the scientist were really to used the nuclear bomb (probably the target was England) but Hitler back up... But, I don't have any hard evidence of these. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Albert Einstein ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 17:17:38 -0800 From: Colin Thompson Subject: Re: New ballistic missile defense system If all the common sense answers to these points don't quickly pop into your head may I suggest another tack. Try reading Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace. It's a whole different view. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 19:25:58 -0800 From: "A.J. Craddock" Subject: Re: New ballistic missile defense system - --=====================_66691081==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Addendum to patrick's post. US military budget: $270 Billion (excludes "black" budget, "creative funding" and military budgets of the UK and other free world countries) North Korea: military budget - under $3 Billion Iraq: military budget - under $2 Billion "The panel believes the intelligence community has a strong case that for sound technical reasons the United States is unlikely to face an indigenously developed and tested intercontinental ballistic missile threat from the third world before 2010, even taking into account the acquisition of foreign hardware and technical assistance, and that case is even stronger than was presented in the estimate." Gates report, December 1996 Tony Craddock ****************** At 11:46 AM 1/21/99 -0800, you wrote: >Lets talk ballistic missile defense....... > >No sooner does Bill give the Joint Chiefs 6 billion dollars (no small chunk >of change!) to buy more bullets, petroleum products and pay raises for the >grunts the Pentagon announces it is beginning to create a 12.5 billion >dollar anti-ballistic missile defense system to protect us from.....if you >can believe this, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, various ex Soviet >provinces, etc..... > >1. Do we really believe N. Korea is working their butts off to build a 3 >stage rocket with maybe a small nuclear device attached so they can finally >lob one into our backyard? Are they really trying hard, thinking "God, if >we can only launch one device and hit Seattle it would be so cool!!!" >After all surely even they understand the power of retribution we are >capable of unleashing. I just don't see any logic in this threat >whatever. I realize they are building a device but do we understand why >they are doing it? > >2. We don't have a real good track record in this area. The THAAP testing >going on at White Sands becomes more dismal with each failing test there. >The intercepts are just not happening. I'm sure the SCUD busters stationed >just down the road at Ft. Bliss are looking over their shoulders and >commenting "At least we hit something once in awhile." > >3. What systems do they actually intend on employing.....and whatever it >is they claim the system will be online in 2005. With such a quick >installation can we then assume more money will need to be thrown into the >breach to meet the deadline? > >4. Whatever became of our agreement not to implent an ABM system? We had >developed a Sprint missile system which had to be junked per an agreement >with the Soviets. Of course the Reagan administration was not letting this >impede progress on their Star Wars programs. > >5. And was it not concluded that Star Wars was not going to be efficient >enough to prevent a lethal number of nuclear warheads from successfully >penetrating its barriers? So somehow now we are able to prevent a handful >of incoming ICBM's so therefore its a rational thing to do? This may make >sense but I really hope we aren't spending bazillions of dollars for a >system that is inherently flawed while we are all told it works fine. And >all the while the AF's Space Boy's are whispering to each other "As long as >we never launch, the public will feel warm and fuzzy and therefore we did >our job". It would be much cheaper to bang two sticks together and tell >people it prevents missiles from landing here. > >Any answers? Guesses? > >patrick > - --=====================_66691081==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Addendum to patrick's post.

US military budget: $270 Billion
(excludes "black" budget, "creative funding" and military budgets of the UK and other free world countries)

North Korea: military budget - under $3 Billion

Iraq: military budget - under $2 Billion

"The panel believes the intelligence community has a strong case that for sound technical reasons the United States is unlikely to face an indigenously developed and tested intercontinental ballistic missile threat from the third world before 2010, even taking into account the acquisition of foreign hardware and technical assistance, and that case is even stronger than was presented in the estimate."

Gates report, December 1996


Tony Craddock

******************

At 11:46 AM 1/21/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Lets talk ballistic missile defense.......
>
>No sooner does Bill give the Joint Chiefs 6 billion dollars (no small chunk
>of change!) to buy more bullets, petroleum products and pay raises for the
>grunts the Pentagon announces it is beginning to create a 12.5 billion
>dollar anti-ballistic missile defense system to protect us from.....if you
>can believe this, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, various ex Soviet
>provinces, etc.....
>
>1.  Do we really believe N. Korea is working their butts off to build a 3
>stage rocket with maybe a small nuclear device attached so they can finally
>lob one into our backyard?  Are they really trying hard, thinking "God, if
>we can only launch one device and hit Seattle it would be so cool!!!"
>After all surely even they understand the power of retribution we are
>capable of unleashing.  I just don't see any  logic in this threat
>whatever.  I realize they are building a device but do we understand why
>they are doing it? 
>
>2.  We don't have a real good track record in this area.  The THAAP testing
>going on at White Sands becomes more dismal with each failing test there.
>The intercepts are just not happening.  I'm sure the SCUD busters stationed
>just down the road at Ft. Bliss are looking over their shoulders and
>commenting "At least we hit something once in awhile."
>
>3.  What systems do they actually intend on employing.....and whatever it
>is they claim the system will be online in 2005.  With such a quick
>installation can we then assume more money will need to be thrown into the
>breach to meet the deadline?
>
>4.  Whatever became of our agreement not to implent an ABM system?  We had
>developed a Sprint missile system which had to be junked per an agreement
>with the Soviets.  Of course the Reagan administration was not letting this
>impede progress on their Star Wars programs.
>
>5.  And was it not concluded that Star Wars was not going to be efficient
>enough to prevent a lethal number of nuclear warheads from successfully
>penetrating its barriers?   So somehow now we are able to prevent a handful
>of incoming ICBM's so therefore its a rational thing to do?  This may make
>sense but I really hope we aren't spending bazillions of dollars for a
>system that is inherently flawed while we are all told it works fine.  And
>all the while the AF's Space Boy's are whispering to each other "As long as
>we never launch, the public will feel warm and fuzzy and therefore we did
>our job".  It would be much cheaper to bang two sticks together and tell
>people it prevents missiles from landing here.
>
>Any answers? Guesses?
>
>patrick
> - --=====================_66691081==_.ALT-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 07:57:41 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and airplanes Stefan wrote: I know the V-2, the world's first ballistic missile and I know the Me-262, the world's first operational jet fighter (ahead of the Skunk Works! - you can see one in the NASM in DC), but there is no evidence that Germany was developing a nuclear bomb. Albert Speer, industrialist extraordinaire, was well aware of the nuclear physics required to build a bomb. Not all of the German theoretical physicists had left when the war began. Speer attempted to build a cyclotron. He even discussed a bomb to Hitler whom he believed would not hesitate to use against England. But the research would have consumed most of the money and manpower available and would not produce a bomb before the war was to end. So when Hitler became convinced it was a plot concocted by the Jewish mind, Speer quickly cancelled all their efforts and moved on to other programs. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:17:46 +0100 From: "Stefan Dornbusch" Subject: [none] Patrick wrote: > Albert Speer, industrialist extraordinaire, was well aware > of the nuclearphysics required to build a bomb. Not all of > the German theoretical physicists had left when the war began. > Speer attempted to build acyclotron. He even discussed a > bomb to Hitler whom he believed would not hesitate to use > against England. But the research would have consumed most > of the money and manpower available and would not produce > a bomb before the war was to end. So when Hitler became > convinced it was a plot concocted by the Jewish mind, Speer > quickly cancelled all their efforts and moved on to other > programs. Thanks Patrick, this sounds realistic. But it means, that no actual development was underway, just some research. As far as I know, it was part of the 'motivation' to convince the scientist involved in the Manhattan Project that Germany was developing such a bomb too. This conviction seems to live on. Stefan.Dornbusch@lang.de Stefan.Dornbusch@knuut.de ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 20:27:11 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: At 10:17 AM 1/22/99 +0100, you wrote: > >Thanks Patrick, this sounds realistic. But it means, that no >actual development was underway, just some research. >As far as I know, it was part of the 'motivation' to convince >the scientist involved in the Manhattan Project that Germany >was developing such a bomb too. This conviction seems to >live on. > As a side note.....there was a lone Japanese physicist who was knowledgeable enough to present the idea of a nuclear bomb to the Imperial Japanese leader. But upon hearing his explanation the physicist was dismissed as being something of a quack. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:10:29 -0700 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: WW II German bomb project (was: something else) See http://www.bearcave.com/bookrev/uclub.htm http://www.amsci.org/amsci/articles/96articles/Logan-s.html http://www.cohums.ohio-state.edu/philo/heisenberg.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 22:04:56 +0100 From: "Stefan Dornbusch" Subject: Re: WW II German bomb project This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BE4653.3ECFFAC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Allan, the links are just great! About one year ago I bought the book "The Making Of The Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rodes from the Area51-Research- Center bookstore. A tremendous book, but I haven't read it through yet (it's not easy for a German to read such a book=20 in it's original language - but I finished "Skunk Works" from=20 Ben Rich within a few days - Ok, you would finish it in a few hours). Does anybody has more information about Germany's secret airplane projects in the last days of WWII? In my eyes this is by far more interesting to discuss. Stefan.Dornbusch@knuut.de Stefan.Dornbusch@lang.de - ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BE4653.3ECFFAC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Allan,=20 the links are just great!
 
About one=20 year ago I bought the book "The Making Of = The
Atomic=20 Bomb" by Richard Rodes from the = Area51-Research-
Center=20 bookstore. A tremendous book, but I haven't read = it
through yet=20 (it's not easy for a German to read such a book =
in=20 it's original language - but I finished "Skunk = Works"=20 from
Ben=20 Rich within a few days - Ok, you would finish it in a=20 few
hours).
 
Does anybody=20 has more information about Germany's=20 secret
airplane projects in the last days of WWII? In my eyes = this=20 is
by far more = interesting to=20 discuss.
 
Stefan.Dornbusch@lang.de
 
 
 
 
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BE4653.3ECFFAC0-- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #5 ******************************* 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