X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=googlemail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=4GgYWvMhiEeHV7kvyv4odCBUHIV4w2XOcTiwpHgP9xE=;
	b=dfvpm79bBmD9/HdFOpgCwqqJ9eayDaMF22RWBkqpdZIfwvbyu5GeU3YoaAa/tSy79N
	W99yi3pvh9QESUUUxyllTN3XkFjyeOyJiROaW774p084/1GN7SFs+kCenDWPBA34bvGS
	L2NhOjMbWLRvsN4ITM4sUnMZ3eh15K7LRwQvIalnKj8ni9IpUCOxiPvSHkLRPbKJOM+7
	wc7ZAd9ncOHseplAD15lZkgoGzKBG5hV3G1TY29VC4qirPwseDsxAHFuyWxibjGptx3G
	GPFadsGKSMbFbXEx92GmDlhZH7XGeL02mQxSYnQHJ8GAVFh/DNLOqv89IE27AFHkRr7Y
	dJfA==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.202.169.138 with SMTP id s132mr25494619oie.101.1451164924282;
	Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:22:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:	<001a1134f920c49e910527d3a068@google.com>
References:	<CAJXU7q-STU6GSxZSoes5DozwVVZunXCzWt8QVhU8iAXWwSt=dA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<001a1134f920c49e910527d3a068 AT google DOT com>
Date:	Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:22:04 -0600
Message-ID:	<CAJXU7q-N=dNaK=3pV8t14pxDNFROqW4u4MjAc8EEWODmOYVYbA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	[geda-user] Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
From:	"Peter Clifton (petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	gEDA User Mailing List <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Focus on within-layer clearances for now.

Any more complex design rules (such as dielectric breakdown through
the layer stack) requires more data than we have in PCB's data-model,
and may actually belong in a separate calculation utility that would
calculate out a geometric design rule that can be applied in PCB.


Peter

On 26 December 2015 at 15:19, Mail Delivery Subsystem
<mailer-daemon AT googlemail DOT com> wrote:
> Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
>
>      geda-user AT delorie DOT com
>
> Technical details of permanent failure:
> Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the relay smtp.clifton-electronics.co.uk by smtp.clifton-electronics.co.uk. [208.91.198.143].
>
> The error that the other server returned was:
> 553 5.7.1 <Peter DOT Clifton AT clifton-electronics DOT co DOT uk>: Sender address rejected: not owned by user sendonly AT clifton-electronics DOT co DOT uk
>
>
> ----- Original message -----
>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Received: by 10.202.201.77 with SMTP id z74mr26576651oif.24.1451164771839;
>  Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:19:31 -0800 (PST)
> Received: by 10.60.51.168 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:19:31 -0800 (PST)
> In-Reply-To: <20151226214713 DOT 61c9396af946d08bcdbac081 AT gmail DOT com>
> References: <CAC4O8c9zz3X9K-E4fAwjKEdLjNiSLo6FTObDo7vbCm+0yb6ipg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
>         <20151226214713 DOT 61c9396af946d08bcdbac081 AT gmail DOT com>
> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:19:31 -0600
> X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAJXU7q-STU6GSxZSoes5DozwVVZunXCzWt8QVhU8iAXWwSt=dA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
> Message-ID: <CAJXU7q-STU6GSxZSoes5DozwVVZunXCzWt8QVhU8iAXWwSt=dA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
> Subject: Re: [geda-user] using DRC for other clearance values -- probably a
>  bad idea
> From: Peter Clifton <Peter DOT Clifton AT clifton-electronics DOT co DOT uk>
> To: gEDA User Mailing List <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Focus on within-layer clearances for now.
>
> Any more complex design rules (such as dielectric breakdown through
> the layer stack) requires more data than we have in PCB's data-model,
> and may actually belong in a separate calculation utility that would
> calculate out a geometric design rule that can be applied in PCB.
>
>
> Peter
>
> On 26 December 2015 at 14:47, Nicklas Karlsson
> (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]
> <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>>> I previously said existing DRC could be used for this.  Unfortunately I
>>> guess that for cases where larger clearances are desired, it's often
>>> because of electromagnetic considerations, which means that it's probably
>>> really an inter-layer requirement, which means existing DRC code would not
>>> be useful.  Sorry.
>>>
>>> Britton
>>
>> Are they allowed to come close to each other on different layers? Or not?
>>
>>
>> Nicklas Karlsson

- Raw text -