From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #45 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 Sunday, June 18 2000 Volume 09 : Number 045 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** FWD (TLCB) Re(22.5): NMD [Addendum] FWD (EXT) Atomic Demolition Munitions New U-2 book FWD (EXT/TLCB) Re(34.3): NMD [Addendum] Re: FWD (EXT) Re: National Missile Defense [was - eeyore and tigger][[Part 2 of 2]] Re: FWD (EXT) Re(22): National Missile Defense [was - eeyore and tigger] [[Part 1 of 2]] Re: FWD (EXT/TLCB) Re(34.3): NMD [Addendum] Re: FWD (EXT) Atomic Demolition Munitions Re: FWD (EXT) Re(22): National Missile Defense [was - eeyore and tigger] [[Part 1 of 2]] Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: NMD [Addendum] *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:40:28 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (TLCB) Re(22.5): NMD [Addendum] Michael S. Lorrey writes: >Unshielded radiation sources I'm told can be easily detected, especially on >cold terrain or in cold water because of the normal IR emissions of radioactive Er, people say Pu is warm to the touch. I don't think this is true for U235 (but they probably don't use it anymore). I don't think a warhead will dissipate more than, say 20-30 W. This can be easily counteracted with cooling techniques, creating a zero signature warhead. >decay, I'm also told there are some neutron and xray detection methods as well. You could spot a ton of uranium ore on Moon surface from orbit, possibly. On Earth, forget it. - ------------- John Calvin writes: >Actually Mike, the SOSA system to which you refer is a passive >system. It is only able to track things that make noise regardless of >the chemical makeup. Active sonar, where being metal really makes a >difference is in itself detectable, due to the fact that it must send >out the sound signal (ping) and wait for the reflection. Now a >magnetic detection system, which SOSA is not, would function as >described in your above paragraph. Needs a nuke have a large magnetic field? I don't think so. Using a liquid-filled blimp, one can create a buoy almost without any signature. The water is a good shield, so you can make the warhead very light. - -------------- >Needs a nuke have a large magnetic field? I don't think so. I'm not certain where you read that anything would require nukes to generate a magnetic field. Certainly not in my response to Mike above, the word nuke is not even mentioned. The simple fact is that anything with metal or electronics has a detectable magnetic field. Large seagoing vessels can have a Magnetic "Signature". >Using a liquid-filled blimp, one can create a buoy almost without any >signature. The water is a good shield, so you can make the warhead >very light. Water is not all that good of a shield. FYI there are Magnetic mines that can be set to a specific signature type. John Calvin Local Group - --------------- >Now a magnetic detection system, which SOSA is not, would function as described >in your above paragraph. I suppose most people are not aware of the sophistication of the newer systems. The newer systems do function passivly, but while they primarily work off of source transmissions, there are also some 'undocumented features': they also 'image' the 3D space of the ocean off of ambient diffuse sound, much as whales do. So they can spot any object of a given minimum sonic cross section. A metallic bouy actually reflects quite well compared to soft animal flesh, which is the normal aquatic mammal target. Many whales echolocation capability is sensitive enough to sonically image an entire ocean off of one or two calls, and the newest mikes were privately developed specifically for studying whales, but the tech was seized by the Navy at the patent orifice. So unless you grow your bouy out of a meat vat, your bouy is gonna stick out like an 18 wheeler on a Nevada highway patrolmans radar scope... - -------------- On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Michael S. Lorrey wrote: > I suppose most people are not aware of the sophistication of the newer > systems. The newer systems do function passivly, but while they Well, whether actively or passively, they are typically relatively removed from an object they're detecting. If that object attempts to camouflage as something natural, or blends into the background noise, you're having a rather tough job detecting it. > primarily work off of source transmissions, there are also some > 'undocumented features': they also 'image' the 3D space of the ocean off > of ambient diffuse sound, much as whales do. So they can spot any object > of a given minimum sonic cross section. A metallic bouy actually A large liquid baloon with a slow sound diffraction gradient, possibly including foam at the core is not something which is intrinsically very well visible on sonar. > reflects quite well compared to soft animal flesh, which is the normal > aquatic mammal target. Many whales echolocation capability is sensitive Of course, the buoy would not want to be a good sound reflector. > enough to sonically image an entire ocean off of one or two calls, and > the newest mikes were privately developed specifically for studying > whales, but the tech was seized by the Navy at the patent orifice. So A whale is either large, or loud, or both. > unless you grow your bouy out of a meat vat, your bouy is gonna stick > out like an 18 wheeler on a Nevada highway patrolmans radar scope... Don't thunk so. It's easy enough to camouflage a floating smart nuke (the only problem will be orientation, which would require a teensy floating GPS antenna on a tether). - --------------- On 15 Jun 2000, John Calvin wrote: > I'm not certain where you read that anything would require nukes to > generate a magnetic field. Certainly not in my response to Mike > above, the word nuke is not even mentioned. The simple fact is that Gee, I thought we were discussing sneaking in smart nuke buoys, using passive stream transport. > anything with metal or electronics has a detectable magnetic field. > Large seagoing vessels can have a Magnetic "Signature". The point is "large" and "ferromagnetic". A nuke needs not to be large, nor ferromangnetic, nor burn more than a few W in the dormant state. > >Using a liquid-filled blimp, one can create a buoy almost without any > >signature. The water is a good shield, so you can make the warhead > >very light. > Water is not all that good of a shield. FYI there are Magnetic mines Water is a free radioactivity/EM shield, and good enough to be used for hot nuclear ash in relatively shallow pools. > that can be set to a specific signature type. I believe you, but if your signature disappears in background noise, you're screwed. Unless you do it "hunting for lions in the Sahara with sieves" style, this is not going to be a reliable intercept. - --------------- - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Allies, CIA/NSA, and Vietnam veterans welcome] Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:55:14 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (EXT) Atomic Demolition Munitions Brian D Williams wrote: For those interested in Atomic Demolition Munitions see: < http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/madm.htm > One could be light and portable enough for one man to carry and deploy -- a backpack or suitcase nuke. Terry - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Allies, CIA/NSA, and Vietnam veterans welcome] Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:14:48 -0400 From: Joe Donoghue Subject: New U-2 book Chris Pocock's new U-2 history is available from Schiffer Books and Barnes and Noble online. (Probably will show up in Borders and Barnes and Noble stores soon too.) (details below) Those who know Chris or his work will know that he has been following the U-2 story for at least a quarter century and writing extremely informatively on the subject for two decades. His DRAGON LADY, THE HISTORY OF THE U-2 SPYPLANE, published in 1989, has been called "the best and most accurate unclassified account of the U-2 program" by CIA historians. The new book, THE U-2 SPYPLANE: TOWARD THE UNKNOWN, A NEW HISTORY OF THE EARLY YEARS, is a more detailed look at the U-2 program, CIA and USAF, from before the design was inked on paper till the Powers shootdown of May 1, 1960. Chris has drawn on new information from Soviet/Russian and Communist Chinese sources, newly declassified US documents and - especially - from his wide contacts among U-2 project people of all disciplines and eras to produce this major contribution to the historical record of the U-2. There is a great deal of previously unpublished information on the accelerated developmental program of the U-2, and the Soviet and other missions flown by CIA and USAF pilots from June 1956 till May 1960. The May 1 1960 mission of Frank Powers and events leading up to it are covered in great detail thanks to interviews with many who were with Powers before takeoff or who were expecting to meet him at Bodo, Norway on completion of the very ambitious mission. Former Soviet sources fill in the story from their side. Disclaimer: I have no financial interest in this book. I simply enjoy spreading the word to interested parties when such a great and interesting work becomes available. Details: Title: The U-2 Spyplane: Toward the Unknown Author: Chris Pocock ISBN 0-7643-1113-1 288 pages Many previously unpublished photos. Here's the URL for the Schiffer site. They want $29.95 (plus $3.95 shipping, I think) http://www.schifferbooks.com/military/aviationjetage/0764311131.html and here is the book at B&N. Their price is $20.96 plus about the same shipping fee as Schiffer. http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=4JK8SYGG11& mscssid=KADMDX4L84SR2KHV0017QUW4DCCL7XX5&srefer=&isbn=0764311131 Glad for Control C/Control V. I'd never have fat-fingered that in without a typo! Joe Donoghue ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:50:00 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (EXT/TLCB) Re(34.3): NMD [Addendum] In a message dated 6/14/00 12:36:02 AM Central Daylight Time, fortean1@frontiernet.net writes: > > Also what is to keep Iraq from placing a nuclear warhead > > on a ship and sailing it into New York City harbor? > > Here's a scarier scenario, from a old report to the USCG forecasting turn of > the century law enforcement requirements. > > Most/many currents are constant and predictable, put someting in it, let it > go, and you know woth fair accuracy where and when it'll be down the road. > > There are bouys called so-fars -- they only rise or sink sofar, and the > depth can be set. These are old technology. Hook a device of mass > destruction (nuclear or biologocal or chemical) to a sofar, put it in a > current and let it go. > > When it goes off, whom do you blame, where do you retaliate, how do you > adequately guard against it? > > I am only amazed that a terrorist group has not yet used this method! Thinking up ways for Bad Guys to smuggle in and deliver WMDs to First World cities is sort of a morbid pastime for me from time to time. Having spent a lot of my career working in the maritime industry, I've come up with a foolproof way to smuggle a nuke into the US with zero risk of detection and capture. Here's the plan (which would make a nice part of an action movie, I think): 1. Nuke is placed on a marginal cargo ship (there are LOTS of them around). This could happen in, say Karachi, after making its way overland from Russia through Afghanistan. How the nuke gets out of the hands of the Russian army and across the border into Afghanistan is left as an exercise for the reader. 2. The freighter is bound (legitimately) for some port in the Caribbean - anyplace will do. 3. In the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, the "Package" is pushed overboard. The Package is a so-far buoy, with a smart sonar system. The system is quiet, but listening. 4. Bad Guys have bought a middling-sized yacht in any US Gulf port. There are tens of thousands of boats at slips all along the Gulf Coast, and their comings and goings are of no real interest to the Coast Guard. 5. Bad Guys establish a pattern of long-weekend trips out into the Gulf for recreation. There's plenty of big game fish out there and thousands of boats come and go every day for this purpose. 6. Bad Guys head for the coordinates of the drop. Once there, they start pinging a signal the so-far is set to listen for. When the Package hears the right signal, it starts answering with a steady locator response, making finding it a snap. 7. Bad Guys haul the so-far up under cover of darkness, using the boat's light tackle, stash it below decks and head for home, snagging a couple of marlins on the way for cover. Upon return to their slip, no one's concerned, especially not US Customs, because they haven't called at a foreign port. 8. Bad Guys can keep the Package on the boat for weeks until they are sure no one is watching, and then move it off the boat to a rental storage unit at their leisure. 9. Delivery is by any number of means. My favorite is a remotely-controlled light private aircraft, to provide maximum airburst damage radius. Pretty nasty, huh? I've got others . . . Greg Burch - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Allies, CIA/NSA, and Vietnam veterans welcome] Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 09:30:33 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: Re: FWD (EXT) Re: National Missile Defense [was - eeyore and tigger][[Part 2 of 2]] > >Even the US doesn't make half megaton weapons any more > > How long do you thing it would take an experienced nuclear nation to special > order an H bomb of any size desired? I would guess between 5 and 6 hours. As far as I remember there are still some megaton class B-83s(?) lying around which they try to keep quiet. Interestingly though the B-52 is the only bomber qualified to carry them now. Whether or not they'd send a B-52 in to drop one I don't know. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:05:41 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: Re: FWD (EXT) Re(22): National Missile Defense [was - eeyore and tigger] [[Part 1 of 2]] > Yes, and there were artillery shells developed for 4 and 8 inch guns that were > nuke capable. Once the gummint had a better idea of what lingering radiation > could do, many of those were retired and dismantled. Some were kept in europe > for helping to winnow down the 20 to 1 odds against us in armor capability the > Warsaw Pact had if they tried to take western europe. So far as I know, many or > most are no longer in service. Those still in storage are kept at places like > Dugway which are VERY secure. I hadn't heard of Dugway so looked around on the web for it. No where mentioned the nuke storage (as if you'd expect the official site to!) but apparently its being used to X-33 testing and they're building a 15,000 ft runway at the moment. Of course there were also connections with UFOs as always. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:18:03 -0500 From: UFO Subject: Re: FWD (EXT/TLCB) Re(34.3): NMD [Addendum] Or just build it stateside? Be a hella lot simpler.

Or fly it in on a chartered gulfstream private jet and leave it parked until detonation.

Or a kamikazie flight from Cuba.

Endless possibilities.

Terry W. Colvin wrote:

Thinking up ways for Bad Guys to smuggle in and deliver WMDs to First World
cities is sort of a morbid pastime for me from time to time.  Having spent a
lot of my career working in the maritime industry, I've come up with a
foolproof way to smuggle a nuke into the US with zero risk of detection and
capture.  Here's the plan (which would make a nice part of an action movie, I
think):

1.  Nuke is placed on a marginal cargo ship (there are LOTS of them around).
This could happen in, say Karachi, after making its way overland from Russia
through Afghanistan.  How the nuke gets out of the hands of the Russian army
and across the border into Afghanistan is left as an exercise for the reader.

2.  The freighter is bound (legitimately) for some port in the Caribbean -
anyplace will do.

3.  In the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, the "Package" is pushed overboard.
The Package is a so-far buoy, with a smart sonar system.  The system is
quiet, but listening.

4.  Bad Guys have bought a middling-sized yacht in any US Gulf port.  There
are tens of thousands of boats at slips all along the Gulf Coast, and their
comings and goings are of no real interest to the Coast Guard.

5.  Bad Guys establish a pattern of long-weekend trips out into the Gulf for
recreation.  There's plenty of big game fish out there and thousands of boats
come and go every day for this purpose.

6.  Bad Guys head for the coordinates of the drop.  Once there, they start
pinging a signal the so-far is set to listen for.  When the Package hears the
right signal, it starts answering with a steady locator response, making
finding it a snap.

7.  Bad Guys haul the so-far up under cover of darkness, using the boat's
light tackle, stash it below decks and head for home, snagging a couple of
marlins on the way for cover.  Upon return to their slip, no one's concerned,
especially not US Customs, because they haven't called at a foreign port.

8.  Bad Guys can keep the Package on the boat for weeks until they are sure
no one is watching, and then move it off the boat to a rental storage unit at
their leisure.

9.  Delivery is by any number of means.  My favorite is a remotely-controlled
light private aircraft, to provide maximum airburst damage radius.

Pretty nasty, huh?  I've got others . . .

      Greg Burch

--
Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA)
< fortean1@frontiernet.net >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage *
   TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Allies, CIA/NSA,
                  and Vietnam veterans welcome]
Southeast Asia (SEA) service:
Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade
   (Jan 71 - Aug 72)
Thailand/Laos
 - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand
   (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73)
 - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand
   (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site
   (Aug 73 - Jan 74)

------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:27:10 -0500 From: UFO Subject: Re: FWD (EXT) Atomic Demolition Munitions One man could carry that? At 163 pounds? lol I don't think so. But you're right, there was a lighter one, just a bad choice of a link. It was sometimes commonly called the NPU, nuclear pack unit, usually carried by special forces like the SEALs. Maybe that's what you are reffering to but it's probably not really well known even today if you know what I mean.

There was always the joke that although there was supposed to be a 12 hour timer, the delivery people always figured that in reality it would blow as soon as it was planted. Probably even true. lol

Terry W. Colvin wrote:

For those interested in Atomic Demolition Munitions see:

< http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/madm.htm >

One could be light and portable enough for one man to carry and deploy - --
a backpack or suitcase nuke.

Terry

------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:27:32 -0500 From: UFO Subject: Re: FWD (EXT) Re(22): National Missile Defense [was - eeyore and tigger] [[Part 1 of 2]]  

Gavin Payne wrote:

> Yes, and there were artillery shells developed for 4 and 8 inch guns that
were
> nuke capable. Once the gummint had a better idea of what lingering
radiation
> could do, many of those were retired and dismantled. Some were kept in
europe
> for helping to winnow down the 20 to 1 odds against us in armor capability
the
> Warsaw Pact had if they tried to take western europe. So far as I know,
many or
> most are no longer in service. Those still in storage are kept at places
like
> Dugway which are VERY secure.
One of the most famous videos of a nuke explosion is of an artillery shell. You can see, you guessed it, a howitzer in front of the explosion. I think the yield for artillery nukes was usually like .1 KT wasn't it?
 
I hadn't heard of Dugway so looked around on the web for it.  No where
mentioned the nuke storage (as if you'd expect the official site to!) but
apparently its being used to X-33 testing and they're building a 15,000 ft
runway at the moment.
Why? They already have one that's 13,000 ft long. Are they building a new one or lengthening that one by a mere 2,000 feet?
 
 
Of course there were also connections with UFOs as always.


There are connections to UFOs in anything, almost always uninformed fantasy. Oops, forgot that my email address is "UFO" lol Well I can't help it, true or not it is a fascinating subject if the silliness doesn't get to you. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:30:13 -0500 From: UFO Subject: Re: FWD (TLCB) Re: NMD [Addendum]  

Allen Thomson wrote:

UFO said

>But it's just around the corner. It's been in development for the past
decade or more.

If, as I think, we're talking about detecting the radiation given off by a
nuclear bomb before it explodes, we'll never, ever have the capability of
doing that from space, simply because there's nothing to detect outside the
atmosphere if the bomb is on the ground. It's that 10-meters of water
equivalent screening, plus the low radioactivity of bombs that gets you. The
100+ km stand-off range doesn't help either.
 

Well I'm not talking about "bouy bombs" and I'm not talking about a sattelite just happening to detect a nuclear weapon. More like the MAD example where they would have to be looking for it.
 
>Testing was done with the ALEXIS and FORTE sats and CALIPOE systems to
develop >multi-spectral thermal imaging for the detection of nuclear
materials for arms proliferation >uses. 3 or 4 years ago they were able to
detect radioactive dust in processing plants. And >that's just the
non-secret stuff. Although I still think detection of a bomb will be a few
years >off, it will happen soon. there are already "sniffers" in Washington,
the Panama Canal and >other places and once they have detection down with
sattelites (if we don't already), next >step will be tracking of materials,
then bombs.

Forte and Alexis are helping to develop new techniques applicable to the
detection of nuclear explosions, a different and generally easier task than
we're talking about. See http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1997/forte_pr.htm

CALIOPE is indeed intended for remote chemical diagnostics to help detect
and diagnose WMD production and possibly storage facilities.  But it has no
application in finding an assembled nuclear weapon.
 

I wasn't saying that they could detect nuclear weapons only that they were also used for testing of various detection methods of not only explosions but also of classified monitoring packages but I may have the wrong line of sats or possibly i'm too early in the right line of sats. It was before Cobra Brass. I'm trying to remember exactly what was on what sat but it's been a long time since I've talked about this stuff but as far as I know all the work that was even slightly known was only preliminary stage stuff. But yes, they did detect radioactive dust. Well anyway I guess I shouldn't talk about things I barely remember but it is being investigated, and a couple of methods were improved last I heard...
 
I try to avoid being dogmatic about such things, but it's appropriate in
this case: *There is no known physical principle that would allow the
radiation from an unexploded nuclear weapon on the ground to be detected
above the atmosphere, because the radiation doesn't escape through the
atmosphere.*
Well you better tell the DoD and DOE that because that's precisely what they're trying to figure out how to do. Might save them some time and save us all some money.

I'm not sure the method but I don't think they like to be very specific on it anyway. I do think I know of a way it could be done but I'd have to think about it some more so I don't blurt it out and look like a fool. Anyway, I guess I don't have much more info I could lend you at the moment. Perhaps we should agree to disagree and meet back here in 5 years and see who was right?

:)  <~confident smirk ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #45 ******************************** 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