Re: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would help him if he were using DXP, but since he is using P99SE his only choice is to use the hole size editor and manually check that the holes are in his list. Robert, I'm not talking about DXP - I'm using Protel99SE! The post was about using Query Manager (the tool which IS in P99SE) to SELECT objects not meeting desired rule instead of running DRC (while you cannot specify proper rule in P99SE). I tested the method quickly (in P99SE) before sending the post - I got selected those pads and vias that had there hole sizes out of the desired set. Producing drill file is good - it shows quickly that you have some pads/vias offending your rule, but with the described method you get them selected, which may help with further processing. Sincerely, Wojciech Oborski * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint
Well I sit corrected. Sorry. I never even noticed Query Manager in the menus. I guess you learn something new every day. Robert D. LaMoreaux MTS Systems Corp. Powertrain Technology Division 4622 Runway Blvd. Ann Arbor, MI 48108 734-822-9696 Fax 734-973-1103 Main Desk 734-973- Wojciech Oborski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/25/2003 03:28 AM Please respond to Protel EDA Forum To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would help him if he were using DXP, but since he is using P99SE his only choice is to use the hole size editor and manually check that the holes are in his list. Robert, I'm not talking about DXP - I'm using Protel99SE! The post was about using Query Manager (the tool which IS in P99SE) to SELECT objects not meeting desired rule instead of running DRC (while you cannot specify proper rule in P99SE). I tested the method quickly (in P99SE) before sending the post - I got selected those pads and vias that had there hole sizes out of the desired set. Producing drill file is good - it shows quickly that you have some pads/vias offending your rule, but with the described method you get them selected, which may help with further processing. Sincerely, Wojciech Oborski * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint
I know this is not exactly what is expected, but maybe it can be considered as a workaround: 1. Specify (using query manager) a selection query looking like: select all pad.hole size which are not equal to 28 and select all pad.hole size which are not equal to 32 and select all pad.hole size which are not equal to 40 and select all via.hole size which are not equal to 24 and select all via.hole size which are not equal to 28 - if there are any SMD components, then add: select all pad.hole size which are not equal to 0 2. Hit Apply - as a result one gets selected pads and vias not meeting desired rule Pads and vias may be processed separately - 2 different queries would be needed. Having all pads (and/or vias) not meeting the rule selected (instead of listed in DRC report) may be a benefit - one may use it to globally edit them or even easily create pad class for them. Wojciech Oborski * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint
That would help him if he were using DXP, but since he is using P99SE his only choice is to use the hole size editor and manually check that the holes are in his list. So you can make a rule to limit your holes to a list in DXP but not in P99SE. Robert D. LaMoreaux MTS Systems Corp. Powertrain Technology Division 4622 Runway Blvd. Ann Arbor, MI 48108 734-822-9696 Fax 734-973-1103 Main Desk 734-973- Wojciech Oborski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/24/2003 10:06 AM Please respond to Protel EDA Forum To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint I know this is not exactly what is expected, but maybe it can be considered as a workaround: 1. Specify (using query manager) a selection query looking like: select all pad.hole size which are not equal to 28 and select all pad.hole size which are not equal to 32 and select all pad.hole size which are not equal to 40 and select all via.hole size which are not equal to 24 and select all via.hole size which are not equal to 28 - if there are any SMD components, then add: select all pad.hole size which are not equal to 0 2. Hit Apply - as a result one gets selected pads and vias not meeting desired rule Pads and vias may be processed separately - 2 different queries would be needed. Having all pads (and/or vias) not meeting the rule selected (instead of listed in DRC report) may be a benefit - one may use it to globally edit them or even easily create pad class for them. Wojciech Oborski * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would help him if he were using DXP, but since he is using P99SE his only choice is to use the hole size editor and manually check that the holes are in his list. It seems to me that the easiest way to see what holes are on the board is to make the drill file, then look at the Drill Report file (.drr). The report fill lists all holes, with quantities and tool codes. If the report shows some unwanted hole sizes, a bit of thought will often lead you to the offending components (eg: it shows 6 .030 holes - hmmm, I've got a couple of TO-92 transistors - better check/change their hole size) Occasionally, I've had to look through the .txt drill file to find the locations of wrong sized holes. (Look for the tool code shown in the report file, then check the coordinates shown for that tool.) -- Peter Bennett TRIUMF 4004 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada GPS and NMEA info and programs: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter/index.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint
Alexandre, set the scope to check only the holes of certain size or certain net, not the whole board. Igor -Original Message- From: Alexandre Desnoyers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 24 February 2003 9:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint I want to set some rules in the Hole Size Constraint to specify the drill bits available from APCircuit. I've set the following constraint : NameScopeMinMax Drill 42milBoard 42mil42mil Drill 28milBoard 28mil28mil Drill 35milBoard 35mil35mil When I run the DRC, I get the following rule violations: Processing Rule : Hole Size Constraint (Min=42mil) (Max=42mil) (On the board ) Violation Pad J1-25(49796mil,53700mil) MultiLayer Actual Hole Size = 35mil Violation Pad J1-24(49905mil,53700mil) MultiLayer Actual Hole Size = 35mil Violation Pad J1-23(50014mil,53700mil) MultiLayer Actual Hole Size = 35mil Violation Pad J1-22(50123mil,53700mil) MultiLayer Actual Hole Size = 35mil ... Violation Via (52895mil,51705mil) TopLayer to BottomLayer Actual Hole Size = 28mil Violation Via (53060mil,52280mil) TopLayer to BottomLayer Actual Hole Size = 28mil Violation Via (50621mil,53040mil) TopLayer to BottomLayer Actual Hole Size = 28mil Violation Via (50698mil,53040mil) TopLayer to BottomLayer Actual Hole Size = 28mil ... Processing Rule : Hole Size Constraint (Min=35mil) (Max=35mil) (On the board ) Rule Violations :0 Processing Rule : Hole Size Constraint (Min=28mil) (Max=28mil) (On the board ) Rule Violations :0 Depending on the order that I entered my constraint, Protel change the violation (ex : Violation on the 35mil hole size constraint for all holes set to 28mil). Could you tell me if this issue has already been addressed on the forum. If not, I would like to know if someone already did this and how. I know that I can use the Hole Size Editor to check this by hand, but I would like to be able to use the DRC to check that. Isn't the DRC job to check for manufacturing errors?? Thank you Alexandre Desnoyers Note : I'm using Protel99SE SP6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint
On 09:49 AM 24/02/2003, Alexandre Desnoyers said: I want to set some rules in the Hole Size Constraint to specify the drill bits available from APCircuit. I've set the following constraint : NameScopeMinMax Drill 42milBoard 42mil42mil Drill 28milBoard 28mil28mil Drill 35milBoard 35mil35mil When I run the DRC, I get the following rule violations: Processing Rule : Hole Size Constraint (Min=42mil) (Max=42mil) (On the board ) Violation Pad J1-25(49796mil,53700mil) MultiLayer Actual Hole Size = 35mil Violation Pad J1-24(49905mil,53700mil) MultiLayer Actual Hole Size = 35mil Looks like this is a priority issue. The first rule has the highest priority. Rules are tested against all objects. So your first rule will generate an error on all holes not equal to 42mil. It won't help that you have alternative rules following. You would need some method of saying the hole size could be 42 OR 35 OR 28. I don't know how this could be done in P99SE (it can easily be done in DXP). Adding extra scopes in P99SE won't help, I think, as these can be thought of as further restricting the application of a rule (boolean AND rather than boolean OR). I think in P99SE you will be forced to either develop (or have developed) a server to do to the check (but this will not be able to be automatically added to the design rule system, I believe) or do it manually. Manually seems easiest to me. Another method would be an external script acting on a spreadsheet export of ASCII format file. But This is more effort than using the Hole Size Editor and a lot less convenient when you want to change anything. Ian * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint
Ian, you wrote: The first rule has the highest priority. Rules are tested against all objects. So your first rule will generate an error on all holes not equal to 42mil. It won't help that you have alternative rules following. I would say, that the rules are tested against all objects covered by the rule's scope. Create a rule that covers only the objects you want to test or excludes the objects you don't want to test. E.g. in this case, in the general rule with the scope 'board' (if there is such a rule) he should exclude the holes of the sizes he wants to check specifically, and create rules to check each of them individually. The problem is how to distinguish those hole sizes from the rest. They could belong to a net, a component, a class or something else. Regards, Igor * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint
At 10:55 AM 24/02/03 +1100, you wrote: Ian, you wrote: The first rule has the highest priority. Rules are tested against all objects. So your first rule will generate an error on all holes not equal to 42mil. It won't help that you have alternative rules following. I would say, that the rules are tested against all objects covered by the rule's scope. Create a rule that covers only the objects you want to test or excludes the objects you don't want to test. E.g. in this case, in the general rule with the scope 'board' (if there is such a rule) he should exclude the holes of the sizes he wants to check specifically, and create rules to check each of them individually. The problem is how to distinguish those hole sizes from the rest. They could belong to a net, a component, a class or something else. Igor, That is certainly true, and is a technique that is very useful in DXP (use the NOT function to exclude objects from a rule rather than including objects). The problem here, as you say, is constructing a sensible rule that is guaranteed to test correctly all holes. What if one net was not part of a class? Or what about free holes not connected to a net? What about nets with a mix of permitted holes? It is also made more complex as vias are not an object in the hole constraint scope list (neither is pad specification an allowable scope in the hole size rule). So you would have to use nets or net classes and then you have a problem ensuring full coverage, don't you. How would you frame a rule that checked that all holes on a board were either 28 or 35 mils. Interesting exercise. Should include free vias and pads, component pads, anything connected to nets and anything not connected to a net. A further restriction would be that if the net classes etc, or whatever, were used were not correctly maintained, that the system was failsafe and would not let through un-wanted hole size (in other words, if I forgot to maintain the class info correctly, I would not potentially allow an unwanted hole to get through the system - this may be best done by a whole board scope checking against one of the desired hole sizes (the most common presumably)). Lets try a simpler case. How would you check, reliably that for a given net, say VCC, that holes were either 28 or 35 mils and nothing else. Test this against a VCC net that has both 28 and 35 mil holes. I can't see a method of doing this in P99SE. P99SE does not have a ready method of selectively excluding things from a check. If something meets the scope (in net VCC, say) it will be tested against the rule. So a 35 mil hole will generate an error when tested against the VCC/28 mil rule, and visa versa. Now if we could exclude anything that had a hole size of 35 mils from the 28 mil test then we may be getting somewhere - but again P99SE does not allow a pad specification to be used in a hole constraint scope - and it does not allow a via hole size to be a valid scope and, anyway, it does not support not equal to operations on via and pad specifications even if these scopes were supported in the hole size constraint rule. I may be missing something but I can't see hole a rule set could be constructed to ensure reliable full coverage and to restrict holes to one of a number of possible sizes when on any given net any of these permitted holes is acceptable. The problem is not so hard if *all* vias/pads on any particular net are the same. Then a series of net classes can be used. Maybe I am missing something. Igor, I'd certainly be interested in seeing how it could be done, Ian Wilson * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint
Ian, let me try: Rule Name Scope MinMax All holes Board 28mil 280mil Drill 42mil Power Tracks (Net class)42mil 42mil Drill 35mil Signal Tracks (Net class) 35mil 35mil Drill 28mil Special Tracks (Region) 28mil28mil It is true that P99SE is limited in what you can do when defining a rule. Otherwise it would not be necessary to introduce a scripting language in the new version of Protel. There are always workarounds, and it is true that they won't cover all the cases. As long as the designer is aware of the limits and of special setup of his/her design, it can be done. The above example shows how I would do it. It differs a bit from suggestions in my initial post in that I included all drill holes in the general rule, otherwise the DRC would have found holes of smaller then permitted sizes. With a careful design this example can be implemented. If requirements are more general, then he will have to write a check for a version with a scripting language. Alexandre's question was not detailed, so wasn't my answer, but I hoped to give him an idea of how to set the rules up, so he could implement it to his own requirements. Hope this post is clearer then the previous ones. Regards, Igor -Original Message- From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 24 February 2003 11:36 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint At 10:55 AM 24/02/03 +1100, you wrote: Ian, you wrote: The first rule has the highest priority. Rules are tested against all objects. So your first rule will generate an error on all holes not equal to 42mil. It won't help that you have alternative rules following. I would say, that the rules are tested against all objects covered by the rule's scope. Create a rule that covers only the objects you want to test or excludes the objects you don't want to test. E.g. in this case, in the general rule with the scope 'board' (if there is such a rule) he should exclude the holes of the sizes he wants to check specifically, and create rules to check each of them individually. The problem is how to distinguish those hole sizes from the rest. They could belong to a net, a component, a class or something else. Igor, That is certainly true, and is a technique that is very useful in DXP (use the NOT function to exclude objects from a rule rather than including objects). The problem here, as you say, is constructing a sensible rule that is guaranteed to test correctly all holes. What if one net was not part of a class? Or what about free holes not connected to a net? What about nets with a mix of permitted holes? It is also made more complex as vias are not an object in the hole constraint scope list (neither is pad specification an allowable scope in the hole size rule). So you would have to use nets or net classes and then you have a problem ensuring full coverage, don't you. How would you frame a rule that checked that all holes on a board were either 28 or 35 mils. Interesting exercise. Should include free vias and pads, component pads, anything connected to nets and anything not connected to a net. A further restriction would be that if the net classes etc, or whatever, were used were not correctly maintained, that the system was failsafe and would not let through un-wanted hole size (in other words, if I forgot to maintain the class info correctly, I would not potentially allow an unwanted hole to get through the system - this may be best done by a whole board scope checking against one of the desired hole sizes (the most common presumably)). Lets try a simpler case. How would you check, reliably that for a given net, say VCC, that holes were either 28 or 35 mils and nothing else. Test this against a VCC net that has both 28 and 35 mil holes. I can't see a method of doing this in P99SE. P99SE does not have a ready method of selectively excluding things from a check. If something meets the scope (in net VCC, say) it will be tested against the rule. So a 35 mil hole will generate an error when tested against the VCC/28 mil rule, and visa versa. Now if we could exclude anything that had a hole size of 35 mils from the 28 mil test then we may be getting somewhere - but again P99SE does not allow a pad specification to be used in a hole constraint scope - and it does not allow a via hole size to be a valid scope and, anyway, it does not support not equal to operations on via and pad specifications even if these scopes were supported in the hole size constraint rule. I may be missing something but I can't see hole a rule set could be constructed to ensure reliable full coverage and to restrict holes to one of a number of possible sizes when on any given net any of these permitted holes is acceptable. The problem is not so hard if *all* vias/pads on any particular net
Re: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint
At 12:29 PM 24/02/03 +1100, you wrote: Ian, let me try: Rule Name Scope MinMax All holes Board 28mil 280mil Drill 42mil Power Tracks (Net class)42mil 42mil Drill 35mil Signal Tracks (Net class) 35mil 35mil Drill 28mil Special Tracks (Region) 28mil 28mil It is true that P99SE is limited in what you can do when defining a rule. Otherwise it would not be necessary to introduce a scripting language in the new version of Protel. The above looks good when all nets in a net class have *all* holes the same size but doesn't allow different hole sizes within a net class - not an uncommon situation - take power nets that have much thinner pullup/pulldown tracks. In dense designs the designer may not have the luxury of allowing all connections to the power class nets to use the larger hole size. The above rules could not meet my challenge of How would you check, reliably, that for a given net, say VCC, that holes were either 28 or 35 mils and nothing else. As you say Igor, I think this is one area where P99SE simply runs out of steam. I don't think P99SE can do a reliable check in the general case. It can in the restricted case, as you show. Hopefully Alexandre can work within the limited situation of one net-one hole size. (DXP does have a more powerful query language, it does not require scripting to achieve the required general case rule.) Regards, Ian * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint
There is an addon server available (from either RSI or the Protel website) which can be used to edit sizes of holes to different values. This may be useful for what you are trying to do. Clive Igor Gmitrovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 24/02/2003 10:09:10 AM Please respond to Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:(bcc: Clive Broome/sdc) Subject: Re: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint Alexandre, set the scope to check only the holes of certain size or certain net, not the whole board. Igor -Original Message- From: Alexandre Desnoyers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 24 February 2003 9:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] Hole Size Constraint I want to set some rules in the Hole Size Constraint to specify the drill bits available from APCircuit. I've set the following constraint : NameScopeMinMax Drill 42milBoard 42mil42mil Drill 28milBoard 28mil28mil Drill 35milBoard 35mil35mil When I run the DRC, I get the following rule violations: Processing Rule : Hole Size Constraint (Min=42mil) (Max=42mil) (On the board ) Violation Pad J1-25(49796mil,53700mil) MultiLayer Actual Hole Size = 35mil Violation Pad J1-24(49905mil,53700mil) MultiLayer Actual Hole Size = 35mil Violation Pad J1-23(50014mil,53700mil) MultiLayer Actual Hole Size = 35mil Violation Pad J1-22(50123mil,53700mil) MultiLayer Actual Hole Size = 35mil ... Violation Via (52895mil,51705mil) TopLayer to BottomLayer Actual Hole Size = 28mil Violation Via (53060mil,52280mil) TopLayer to BottomLayer Actual Hole Size = 28mil Violation Via (50621mil,53040mil) TopLayer to BottomLayer Actual Hole Size = 28mil Violation Via (50698mil,53040mil) TopLayer to BottomLayer Actual Hole Size = 28mil ... Processing Rule : Hole Size Constraint (Min=35mil) (Max=35mil) (On the board ) Rule Violations :0 Processing Rule : Hole Size Constraint (Min=28mil) (Max=28mil) (On the board ) Rule Violations :0 Depending on the order that I entered my constraint, Protel change the violation (ex : Violation on the 35mil hole size constraint for all holes set to 28mil). Could you tell me if this issue has already been addressed on the forum. If not, I would like to know if someone already did this and how. I know that I can use the Hole Size Editor to check this by hand, but I would like to be able to use the DRC to check that. Isn't the DRC job to check for manufacturing errors?? Thank you Alexandre Desnoyers Note : I'm using Protel99SE SP6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
