I think you  have missed the point.  I find it unacceptable  that maybe four
sites in the network are preventing 15  sites from placing a new software into
production. Period. If  there is a way  technically to avoid a  crash in other
people's servers, I will do it, but if there is no way, tant pis.
 
  It is not possible to send  'customized' PEERS NAMES to the various servers.
This would  require me to  prepare one  PEERS NAMES per  site and send  it via
SENDFILE, ie around  70 files of 1,000 records sent  from FRECP11 via SENDFILE
and more than 1 hour of work.
 
  You say  understaffed. FRECP11 has  a staff of  ONE person to  maintain FOUR
machines on  TWO different buildings  with no  remote login facility.  And the
machine which causes  the less troubles is  the 4381, so guess  which one gets
the smallest amount  of 'staff time'? I'm  not saying that you  should moan on
our status, just that I am fully aware of the problems of understaffing.
 
  If I send mail to  a user and tell him "be careful, in  1 month we will have
to remove FORTVS release 456.781 from the  system, be sure to have migrated to
FORTVS release 457.0 by  then", and one month later he  is still using release
456.781, then  well, what can  I do  for him? The  other 50 fortran  users are
pressing me  to install release 457.0  because of the new  facilities, and for
some technical reason we can't keep the two, so we have to move forward.
 
  Please note that the 1.4 and 1.5b servers are not affected by this since the
PUT command is unknown to them. The 1.5d to 1.5h owners can still disable this
PUT PEERS NAMES to  avoid the problem, and I think that the  right way is that
THEY should spend  2 minutes of their  time instead of me spending  2 hours to
find a solution.
 
Enough blabbered for today.
 
  Eric