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