sss ssss rrrrrrrrrrr ssss ss rrrr rrrr sssss s rrrr rrrr ssssss rrrr rrrr ssssssss rrrr rrrr ssssss rrrrrrrrr s ssssss rrrr rrrr ss sssss rrrr rrrr sss sssss rrrr rrrr s sssssss rrrrr rrrrr +===================================================+ +======= Quality Techniques Newsletter =======+ +======= April 2003 =======+ +===================================================+ QUALITY TECHNIQUES NEWSLETTER (QTN) is E-mailed monthly to Subscribers worldwide to support the Software Research, Inc. (SR), TestWorks, QualityLabs, and eValid user communities and other interested parties to provide information of general use to the worldwide internet and software quality and testing community. Permission to copy and/or re-distribute is granted, and secondary circulation is encouraged by recipients of QTN provided that the entire document/file is kept intact and this complete copyright notice appears with it in all copies. Information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe is at the end of this issue. (c) Copyright 2003 by Software Research, Inc. ======================================================================== Contents of This Issue o SR Moves to New Facility o Testing Big Systems, by Boris Beizer, Ph. D. o Buggy Software Article Pointer, by Bernard Homes o XP2003: 4th International Conference on eXtreme Programming and Agile Processes o More Difficult Questions in a More Difficult Time o More Reliable Software Faster and Cheaper: Distance Learning Version, by John Musa o Comparative Analysis of Websites o Workshop on Remote Analysis and Measurement of Software Systems (RAMSS'03) o Special Issua: Contract-Drive Coordination and Collaboration in the Internet Context o eValid Updates and Details <http://www.e-valid.com> o Workshop on Intelligent Technologies for Software Engineering (WITSE/03) o QTN Article Submittal, Subscription Information ======================================================================== SR Moves to New Facility We operated for 4+ years from an open space barn-like facility with too many skylights located in the South of Market (SOMA) area of San Francisco -- through the peak of the "Dot Com" bubble and its recent catastrophic collapse. Now that "...gravity seems to have returned to the IT industry" (to paraphrase an industry spokesman) we have taken advantage of the availability of space to move our operations to a new, fully renovated office facility that has expansion potential, is close to public transport, is centrally located in San Francisco, has great views, and is a much more professional space. If you're visiting San Francsico we invite you to stop by at any time. The page below explains where we are: <http://www.soft.com/Corporate/GettingToSR.html> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Please Note New Coordinates for SR, eValid, SR/Institute Please make a note of the new postal address and phone/fax numbers for Software Research and its associated organizations. All email and web addresses remain unchanged. Software Research, Inc. eValid, Inc. SR/Institute 1663 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103 USA Phone: +1 (415) 861-2800 FAX: +1 (415) 861-9801 ======================================================================== Testing Big Systems by Boris Beizer Note: This article is taken from a collection of Dr. Boris Beizer's essays "Software Quality Reflections" and is reprinted with permission of the author. We plan to include additional items from this collection in future months. Copies of "Software Quality Reflections," "Software Testing Techniques (2nd Edition)," and "Software System Testing and Quality Assurance," can be obtained directly from the author at. Testing big systems is a refinement of system testing, which in turn is a refinement of testing. The point is to first do proper testing. When you have removed all the bugs that can be practically removed by ordinary testing, then you can consider system testing issues and the specialized techniques that might apply there. Only after ordinary testing and system testing have been thoroughly done should you tackle the special issues of big systems. It is not my purpose here to provide a tutorial on how unit/component, integration, and system testing should be donethat takes several books, of which I have written a few and have yet to write more. The purpose of this essay is to clarify the issues in ordinary and big system testing and to present some philosophical speculations about these issues. 1. Testing By "testing" or "ordinary testing" I mean proper unit/component testing and proper integration testing of already tested units and components. For those not familiar with the terminology, please note the following recursive definitions: o unit: the work of one programmer (typically) the smallest separately testable element of a system, possibly using stubs and/or drivers. Excludes or simulates called components. Ditto for communicating components in non-procedural languages. o component: a unit integrated with called and/or communicating components. o integration testing: the testing of the interfaces and incompatibilities between otherwise correctly working components that have been previously tested at a lower component level. Most easy bugs (about half) will be found by proper unit, component, and integration testing. In OO (or other non-procedural languages) the role of unit/component testing declines but there is a sharp increase in the need for, and the effectiveness of, integration testing. There is no point in dealing with higher-order testing until the easier bugs have been removed by lower-level (and therefore cheaper) unit and component testing. Attempting to do system testing (never mind big system testing) before proper unit/component/integration testing has been done is self-deceptive and a waste of time. All that you will accomplish is to defer the discovery of unit bugs until so-called system testing when you can find them at a much higher cost. Unit testing can be bounded by various testing criteria. Similarly, but less strictly so, component and integration testing can be bounded (i.e., you can reasonably well know and predict when it will be done.) 2. System Testing System testing is the exploration of misbehavior that cannot be detected except in the context of a complete system. Examples include: feature interaction bugs, timing and synchronization bugs, resource loss bugs, performance, throughput, re-entrance, priority. System testing is primarily behavioral testing. That is, requirements-driven feature testing. System testing is unbounded i.e. potentially infinite. Practical considerations lead us to the position that we will test until the software is "good enough." What is good enough is determined in part by: transaction importance, user behavior, risk associated with transaction loss or garble, etc. Of all the system testing issues, one of the nastiest is feature interaction. While it is mandatory that every feature be tested by itself, it is impractical to test all feature interactions. In general, you test only the combination of features that have been shown to be statistically significant in terms of user behavior, or for which potential loss caused by a bug is not acceptable. That is, feature-interaction testing is risk-driven. 3. Big System Testing We could define a big system as software with over 5 million lines of code, but that is not productive. One could have a 50,000,000 line program that would not be a "big" system as I will define it. Similarly, I can hypothesize "big" systems that have only 500,000 lines of codealthough either possibility is unlikely. The most important "big" system issues are: feature interaction richness and performance and the bugs associated with them. A "big" system, as I define it, is one in which subsystem and/or feature interaction is so rich that it is unpredictable. For example, because of inheritance and dynamic binding, it is not really known, or knowable, just what transactions a system might perform in the future. In ordinary system testing, you can test individual transactions (in some risk/priority order, say) and then test interactions between features in similar risk-driven order. In big systems, there is no clearly defined set of transactions to prioritize because transactions are dynamically created by the system itself in response to unpredictable user behavior. There is no point in dealing with issues of dynamically created (and therefore unpredictable) interactions until you have properly tested all the static transactions and a reasonable subset of their interactions that you know about. That is, thorough, risk-driven, ordinary system testing should precede "big system" testing. I'm not going to give you a set of approaches to use because we just don't know enough to lay down prescriptions for big system testing as I have defined big systems. Ordinary system testing approaches (e.g., 100% feature cover) do not work because the feature list is unknown. Furthermore, the cost of finding that hypothetical rich feature (and interaction list) -- i.e., what should we test? -- seems to dominate the problem. An unfortunate common example of what I call "big" system testing was the Y2K problem. Here the system was "big" not necessarily because of inherent complexity, dynamic feature interactions, etc. but because past programming practices and lack of suitable documentation made the identification of Y2K sensitive fields unknown; although not unknowable in principle, the combination of big hunks of legacy software combined with a rigid time-table made the Y2K stuff unknowable in practical terms. Finding out what to test and what to look at dominated the problem. The Y2K problem and the way to go about it, led to radically different approaches and processes. By "radical" I mean dropping such notions as 100% branch cover as an abstract absolute -- don't get me wrong on this -- you still must do 100% cover in unit testing -- what I mean is that the notions of testing that are appropriate to units and small systems simply fall apart in the big system context. To use an analogy, we have three domains: component, system, big system. The analogy is to physics: quantum mechanics for the microscopic, Newtonian physics for the familiar, and relativity on the cosmic scale. Except in our case it is the cosmic scale that is uncertain in contrast with physics where uncertainty manifests itself on the microscopic scale. Perhaps, we should consider not "big" systems, but "uncertain" systems. By which I do not mean that you don't know out of ignorance or lack of trying to know, but you don't know because you can't know. Ordinary risk models don't apply. Such risk models as one should use to guide ordinary system testing (especially of feature interactions) do not apply because we don't have a finite feature list and we certainly don't have a finite feature interaction list to prioritize. Furthermore, the cost of obtaining such a list exceeds potential values. Is there a solution? I don't know. I think that we're mostly in the philosophy stage here and far from substantive answers. I also think that we should be mighty careful in building "big" systems -- which OO and other component technologies makes so easy. It is also time to change our fundamental assumptions about testing. We cannot assume that anything we can build is testable. We must change our basic assumption to: NOTHING IS TESTABLE... UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THAT IT IS TESTABLE. ======================================================================== Buggy Software Article Pointer by Bernard Homes Mail: bhomes@wanadoo.fr Cell: +33 612 252 636 Check this link out, it speaks about software testing and it is very much in the main stream of things: <http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/04/27/buggy.software.ap/index.html> ======================================================================== XP 2003: 4TH International Conference on eXtreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering May 25 - 29, 2003 Genova, Italy <http://www.xp2003.org/> Building on the success of XP2000, XP2001, and XP2002, the Fourth International Conference on eXtreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering will be a forum to discuss theories, practices, experiences, and tools on XP and other agile software processes, like SCRUM, the Adaptive Software Process, Feature Driven Development and the Crystal series. XP2003 will bring together people from industry and academia to share experiences and ideas and to provide an archival source for important papers on agile process-related topics. The conference is also meant to provide information and education to practitioners, identify directions for further research, and to be an ongoing platform for technology transfer. Many gurus have already confirmed their participation to the conference. Among them there are: Kent Beck, Prof. Mike Cusumano, Jim Highsmith, Michele Marchesi, Ken Schwaber, Giancarlo Succi, and many others. The conference wants to maintain the informal, active, productive, and family friendly structures of its previous edition. It will consist of a dynamic mixture of keynote presentations, Technical presentations, panels, poster sessions, activity sessions, workshops, tutorials. A rich companions' program has also been prepared. CONFERENCE TOPICS The conference will stress practical applications and implications of XP and other agile methodologies (AMs). Conference topics include, but are not limited to: - Foundations and rationale of XP and AMs - XP/AMs and Web Services - Introducing XP/AMs into an organization - Relation to the CMM and ISO 9001 - Organizational and management issues and patterns - Use of supportive software development tools and environments - Education and training - Unit and acceptance testing: practices and experiences - Methodology and process - Case studies; empirical findings of the effectiveness of XP/AMs - Refactoring and continuous integrations - XP and AMs practices - Relation to reuse SPONSORED BY: Microsoft Corporation (http://www.microsoft.com/) ThoughtWorks (http://www.thoughtworks.com/) The Agile Alliance (http://www.exoftware.com/) eXoftware (http://www.exoftware.com/) ======================================================================== More Difficult Questions in a More Difficult Time by Edward Miller Last Fall I asked QTN readers to suggest what they thought were the main concerns for the times regarding the general area of software quality. The questions concerned Quality Technology, Issues about the Web, Industry Awareness of Quality Issues, XP, Process Methodologies such as CMM and SPICE and ISO/9000, and Security and Integrity concerns. As good as those responses were -- and they were "right on" in many cases -- it seems to me in the present business and technological climate there are some even deeper questions that present some unique challenges. So, again, below are some really hard questions that, I believe, need to be asked within the software quality community -- and might be the basis for some very good discussions. Not to even think about these things is to avoid reality, and that can't be a good thing to do. To think about them may bring better focus onto the real issues facing the community. So, here goes... * ECONOMIC ISSUES. Everyone in the QA/Test community is suffering -- is this news to any of our readers? What are the factors holding back QA & Test business. How do consultants, and small business operations survive the slowdown? * TECHNICAL ISSUES. It's hard to believe "everything has been invented", but could it be true? What are the real technical issues facing the software quality community? Or are there any? Are there really any problems remaining that need to be solved that are not addressed by current methods? If so, what are they? * MANAGERIAL ISSUES. Test/QA people are in many instances "second class citizens" -- is this news? What keeps there from being more emphasis on systematic QA & Test? How do we "get respect?" Is there something that can actually be done about this, other than wait? Please send your responses -- and, of course, any additional "tough questions" that you think ought to be asked -- to me at . We'll publish a selection next month. ======================================================================== More Reliable Software Faster and Cheaper: Distance Learning Version By John Musa A distance learning version of the software reliability engineering course "More Reliable Software Faster and Cheaper" is now available. This is the same course that has been taken by thousands of participants over the past few years in a classroom version and has been continually updated and thoroughly polished and optimized. It has been designed to meet the needs of several types of prospective participants whose needs could not be met by the classroom version: 1. Individuals and groups that are too small (generally less that 10) to justify bringing the classroom version onsite. 2. Individuals or small groups wanting to try out the course on an inexpensive basis before committing time or funds to an onsite classroom course. 3. Individuals or small groups who need flexibility as to when, where, and at what pace they take the course because of the schedule demands of work or their travel or physical location situation. 4. Individuals or small groups with budget constraints. We are all suffering from hard economic times, but because of that fact, we need to work more efficiently. 5. Individuals who could not attend public presentations of the course because of travel restrictions or schedule conflicts. 6. Individuals and small groups outside of North America. JOHN D. MUSA 39 Hamilton Road Morristown, NJ 07960-5341 Phone: 1-973-267-5284 j.musa@ieee.org Software Reliability Engineering website: http://members.aol.com/JohnDMusa/ ======================================================================== Comparative Analysis of Websites Recently we posted some initial applications of eValid's InBrowser spidering capability to the question of assessing the relative "Best Online Experience" of selected WebSites. Please see this page for explanations of the methodology and our "first try" at understanding the data: <http://www.soft.com/eValid/Promotion/Comparative/Analysis/first.try.html> Here are pointers to the four accompanying reports. o The Fortune 500 Top 10 Companies: <http://www.soft.com/eValid/Promotion/Comparative/Fortune/Top10/summary.html> o The Fortune 500 Top 10 Commercial Banks: <http://www.soft.com/eValid/Promotion/Comparative/Fortune/Commercial.Banks/summary.html> o The Fortune 500 Fastest Growing Small Companies: <http://www.soft.com/eValid/Promotion/Comparative/Fortune/Fastest.Small.Companies/summary.html> o Ten Well-Known Hardware Manufacturers: <http://www.soft.com/eValid/Promotion/Comparative/Fortune/Hardware/summary.html> If you're interested in this general area -- external, objective analysis of websites -- please contact with your suggestions for additional sites to analyze and your recommendations about additional metrics. ======================================================================== Workshop on Remote Analysis and Measurement of Software Systems Portland, Oregon, May 9, 2003 <http://measure.cc.gt.atl.ga.us/ramss/> Co-Located Event of ICSE 2003 The way software is produced and used is changing radically. Not so long ago software systems had only a few users, and ran on a limited number of mostly disconnected computers. Today the situation is unquestionably different. Nowadays the number of software systems, computers, and users has dramatically increased. Moreover, most computers are connected through the Internet. This situation has opened the way for new development paradigms, such as the open- source model, shortened development lead times, and spurred the development and acceptance of increasingly distributed, heterogeneous computing systems. Although these changes raise new issues for software engineers, they also represent new opportunities to greatly improve the quality and performance of software systems. Consider, for example, software analysis and measurement tasks such as testing and performance optimization. Usually, these activities are performed in-house, on developer platforms, using developer-provided inputs, and at great cost. As a result, these activities often do not reflect actual in-the-field performance, which ultimately leads to the release of software with missing functionality, poor performance, errors that cause in-the-field failures and, more generally, users' dissatisfaction. The goal of this workshop is to bring together researchers and practitioners interested in exploring how the characteristics of today's computing environment (e.g., high connectivity, substantial computing power for the average user, higher demand for and expectation of frequent software updates) can be leveraged to improve software quality and performance. In particular, the workshop aims to discuss how software engineers can shift substantial portions of their analysis and measurement activities to actual user environments, so as to leverage in-the-field computational power, human resources, and actual user data to investigate the behavior of their systems after deployment and to improve their quality and performance. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to: * Continuous, lightweight monitoring of deployed systems * Detection and diagnosis of problems and failures in deployed systems * Evolution, optimization, or adaptation of systems based on data-driven feedback from the field * Dynamic analysis and profiling of web-based and distributed systems * Identification of user profiles based on real usage data * Dynamic modification of deployed programs, such as adaptation, instrumentation, and updating * Data mining and visualization of feedback-data from the field PARTICIPATION The workshop will be open to all participants interested in the topic (up to a maximum of 40 participants). Registration for the workshop does NOT require invitation by the PC. ACCEPTED PAPERS "Sampling User Executions for Bug Isolation", by Ben Liblit, Alex Aiken, Alice X. Zheng, and Michael I. Jordan "Toward the Extension of the DynInst Language", by Will Portnoy and David Notkin "Continuous Remote Analysis for Improving Distributed Systems' Performance", by Antonio Carzaniga and Alessandro Orso "Distributed Continuous Quality Assurance: The Skoll Project Cemal Yilmaz, Adam Porter, and Douglas C. Schmidt "A Reconfiguration Language for Remote Analysis and Applications Adaptation", by Marco Castaldi, Guglielmo De Angelis, and Paola Inverardi "Proactive System Maintenance Using Software Telemetry", by Kenny C. Gross, Scott McMaster, Adam Porter, Aleksey Urmanov, and Lawrence G. Votta "Enterprise Application Performance Optimization based on Request- centric Monitoring and Diagnosis", by Jorg P. Wadsack "Deploying Instrumented Software to Assist the Testing Activity", by Sebastian Elbaum and Madeline Hardojo "Runtime Monitoring of Requirements", by Stephen Fickas, Tiller Beauchamp, and Ny Aina Razermera Mamy "Improving Impact Analysis and Regression Testing Using Field Data", by Alessandro Orso, Taweesup Apiwattanapong, and Mary Jean Harrold "Non-invasive Measurement of the Software Development Process", by Alberto Sillitti, Andrea Janes, Giancarlo Succi, and Tullio Vernazza Program Co-chairs: * Alessandro Orso College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology * Adam Porter Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland ======================================================================== Special Issue: Contract-Driven Coordination and Collaboration in the Internet Context Guest editors: Willem-Jan van den Heuvel, Hans Weigand (Tilburg University) AIM: This special issues aims at addressing the wide spectre of issues that are relevant for supporting web-enabled interactions with coordination models, languages and applications. The focus is on the coordination of behavior by means of contracts (TPA, collaboration agreement, ..). Both a theoretical perspective and an industrial perspective are encouraged. Although attention to CSCW/groupware/Negotiation Support is not excluded, the focus is on system interactions, not human interactions. BACKGROUND: Currently, Internet is often associated with the dissemination of information, such as via the WWW. In the future, it will also be used more and more as a platform for linking applications, in the form of web services or agents. For example, for the purpose of cross-organizational workflow, supply chain management, or Enterprise Application Integration. The question is how these distributed and autonomous applications can cooperate. Or to put it more general: how is coordination achieved between autonomous systems? One possible approach is to separate the coordination aspects from the functionality of the application, and describe these coordination aspects in the form of "contracts" that are somehow set up via the Internet, agreed upon and monitored. What can or should be described in these contracts? What are the benefits of such an approach, and what are its limitations? POSSIBLE THEMES: * Coordination and interoperable transactions * Planning coordination patterns * Formal semantics of contracts * Agent society architectures * Event-driven coordination languages for distributed applications * B2B Protocol Standards and Coordination (e.g ebXML, TPA) * Coordination and Service Flow Composition * Modeling control in Cross-Organizational Collaborations * Tool Support for Coordination-Based Software Evolution * Theories and models of coordination and collaboration * Contract monitoring Please send your abstract in PDF format by email to or . INFORMATION ON Data & Knowledge Engineering http://www.elsevier.com/locate/datak Dr. Willem-Jan van den Heuvel Phone : +31 13 466 2767 InfoLab, Tilburg University Fax : +31 13 466 3069 PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands <http://infolab.uvt.nl/people/wjheuvel> ======================================================================== eValid Updates and Details <http://www.e-valid.com> New Download and One-Click Install You can qualify for a free evaluation for Ver. 4.0 including a "one click install" process. Please give us basic details about yourself at: <http://www.soft.com/eValid/Products/Download.40/down.evalid.40.phtml?status=FORM> If the eValid license key robot doesn't give you the EVAL key you need, please write to us and we will get an eValid evaluation key sent to you ASAP! New eValid Bundle Pricing The most-commonly ordered eValid feature key collections are now available as discounted eValid bundles. See the new bundle pricing at: <http://www.soft.com/eValid/Products/bundle.pricelist.4.html> Or, if you like, you can compose your own feature "bundle" by checking the pricing at: <http://www.soft.com/eValid/Products/feature.pricelist.4.html> Check out the complete product feature descriptions at: <http://www.soft.com/eValid/Products/Documentation.40/release.4.0.html> Tell us the combination of features you want and we'll work out an attractive discounted quote for you! Send email to and be assured of a prompt reply. Purchase Online, Get Free Maintenance That's right, we provide you a full 12-month eValid Maintenance Subscription if you order eValid products direct from the online store: <http://store.yahoo.com/srwebstore/evalid.html> ======================================================================== Workshop on Intelligent Technologies for Software Engineering (WITSE'03) 9th European Software Engineering Conference and 11th International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2003) <http://witse.soi.city.ac.uk> September 1, 2003, Helsinki, Finland The increasing complexity of software systems and a number of recent advances in the field of computational intelligence (CI) have been providing a fruitful integration between software engineering (SE) and intelligent technologies. This is particularly true in the following CI areas: model checking, fuzzy logic and abductive reasoning, uncertainty management and belief based reasoning, artificial neural networks and machine learning, genetic and evolutionary computing, case-based reasoning; and the following SE areas: requirements analysis and evolution, traceability, multiple viewpoints, inconsistency management, human-computer interaction design, software risk assessment and software verification. The Workshop on Intelligent Technologies for Software Engineering is intended to provide a forum for presentation and discussion of a wide range of topics related to the applicability of new intelligent technologies to software engineering problems. The aim of this workshop is to bring together researchers from academia and industry, and practitioners working in the areas of computational intelligence and software engineering to discuss existing issues, recent developments, applications, experience reports, and software tools of intelligent technologies in all aspects of software engineering. We seek contributions addressing the theoretic foundations and practical techniques related, but not limited, to: * Intelligent methods of requirements analysis and evolution. * Machine learning for change management and risk assessment. * Intelligent approaches for inconsistency management of software systems. * Intelligent architectures for software evolution. * Intelligent human-computer interaction design. * Intelligent technologies for traceability management. * Intelligent techniques for software validation, verification, and testing. * Empirical studies, experience, and lessons learned on applying computational intelligence to software development. General questions concerning the workshop should be addressed to witse@soi.city.ac.uk. ======================================================================== ------------>>> QTN ARTICLE SUBMITTAL POLICY <<<------------ ======================================================================== QTN is E-mailed around the middle of each month to over 10,000 subscribers worldwide. To have your event listed in an upcoming issue E-mail a complete description and full details of your Call for Papers or Call for Participation to . QTN's submittal policy is: o Submission deadlines indicated in "Calls for Papers" should provide at least a 1-month lead time from the QTN issue date. For example, submission deadlines for "Calls for Papers" in the March issue of QTN On-Line should be for April and beyond. o Length of submitted non-calendar items should not exceed 350 lines (about four pages). Longer articles are OK but may be serialized. o Length of submitted calendar items should not exceed 60 lines. o Publication of submitted items is determined by Software Research, Inc., and may be edited for style and content as necessary. DISCLAIMER: Articles and items appearing in QTN represent the opinions of their authors or submitters; QTN disclaims any responsibility for their content. TRADEMARKS: eValid, SiteWalker, TestWorks, STW, STW/Regression, STW/Coverage, STW/Advisor, TCAT, and the SR, eValid, and TestWorks logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Software Research, Inc. All other systems are either trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies. ======================================================================== -------->>> QTN SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION <<<-------- ======================================================================== To SUBSCRIBE to QTN, to UNSUBSCRIBE a current subscription, to CHANGE an address (an UNSUBSCRIBE and a SUBSCRIBE combined) please use the convenient Subscribe/Unsubscribe facility at: <http://www.soft.com/News/QTN-Online/subscribe.html>. As a backup you may send Email direct to as follows: TO SUBSCRIBE: Include this phrase in the body of your message: subscribe TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Include this phrase in the body of your message: unsubscribe Please, when using either method to subscribe or unsubscribe, type the exactly and completely. Requests to unsubscribe that do not match an email address on the subscriber list are ignored. QUALITY TECHNIQUES NEWSLETTER Software Research, Inc. 1663 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 USA Phone: +1 (415) 861-2800 Toll Free: +1 (800) 942-SOFT (USA Only) FAX: +1 (415) 861-9801 Email: qtn@sr-corp.com Web: <http://www.soft.com/News/QTN-Online>