What's up with Mudcat this time!!???

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: nutty
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 10:44 AM

Given that the entire internet (not just Mudcat) is affected by this adware problem ..... it could just be that the web slows as traffic increases.

Between 6 and 7am being the time when the US is starting to come online.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 10:49 AM

There is the other possibility that it is being done intentionally, and whoever it is was on holiday for the last week or so.
Giok

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: nutty
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 11:02 AM

I'm not sure I follow you Giok

Do you mean that the who web episode is intentional or that Mudcat is being targetted specifically??

And if Mudcat ...... by a member or guest???
I'd be interested to view the evidence on which you have based such a supposition.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: JennyO
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 11:13 AM

I can't imagine internet traffic increasing dramatically at 5 in the morning. It's a bit too early for that. Also, I seem to remember that last time this happened, it started about an hour earlier, at almost the same time day after day (or night after night here in Oz). There's some sort of pattern in it, I think, and probably a good reason, but I don't think we've heard it yet.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: Bassic
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 11:23 AM

I see no evidence of other sites that I access slowing down or becoming unavailable at the same time as we seem to be having the regular occurance here on MC......so that would suggest that it it an MC specific problem rather than the web as a whole slowing down to a crawl. The "evidence" that I presume Giok bases his speculation on, is the regularity of the time........the lack of pre notice or warning of a "planned" outage as I would expect from a maintenance activity, (Max did warn us a couple of weeks ago of such an event), and the fact that we have all been warned of the Funweb problem and how to fix it.The logocal hypothesis is that, if it is due to a funweb problem, then either it is comming from a regular user who has NOT disinfected their machine for some reason, or as Giok suggests, it is being done deliberately for some reason. If it was a random infection caused by an occasional visitor looking for song lyrics, then the regularity of the time that this happens would seem to argue against that. People do do malicious things on the WWW....thats what viruses are all about. That doesnt mean to say there may not be other reasons for it, but speculation is a fairly harmless activity in this case I would think?

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 11:40 AM

Okay, folks, let's put an end once and for all to this perpetual speculating about Mudcat downtime. Here's the plain and simple, factual truth of the matter:

Max is a very smart and caring fellow. He realizes that if the Mudcat were up all the time, many of us would stay on it 16 hours a day except for occasional bathroom, food and sex breaks. In his wisdom, Max has planned these outages so as to give us a little time to practice our instruments, learn new material and write songs. The fact that the outages seem to be totally at random is yet another testimony to Max's wisdom. Since Mudcat membership stretches around the globe through all time zones, the seemingly random nature of the outages merely serves to give all members equal amounts of practice time.

Those are the facts. And, if they aren't, at least they're a pretty good lie.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: mooman
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 12:04 PM

I noticed I was the last member to post before things went odd again. However, I've just done a full system scan (I run the latest updated version Ad-Aware SE every day by the way) and can't find anything untoward. Certainly no new search bars or particularly odd adware apart from the usual rubbish one collects in a normal working day (which is not inconsiderable and requires no effort on one's part!).

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 12:08 PM

Nutty I was just postulating the theory that it could be being done intentionally with malice aforethought, no evidence, just an idle paranoid thought;~)
Giok

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 12:13 PM

Nutty, I'm reluctant to post here but, I can offer these facts.

1. The article Max provided was written in 2003 (12/10/03) which ever way you care to read it. Funweb products have been around and used by many for a long while.

2. The server logs at the Annexe do show that some members of Mudcat still have it on thier system. What I can't find is any evidence of it spidering or otherwise hammering our site with page requests or any other reason such as unexpected downtime to justify me attempting to put a block on it.

3. I check into my ISP's forum daily. There is no mention of a new and current threat from funweb products there.

It could be that Mudcat is being hit by a new and more damaging version of the software, that the news is slow reaching me, and in a few days time I do find I have problems but if I was a gambler I'd put my money on the problem being something else.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Giok P'd Off too
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 05:29 AM

Well it just died again at approx 10:20 am UK time, as I was in the middle of posting.
Giok :~(

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,JennyO
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 07:51 AM

Yep, same time AGAIN. See you in the Backdoor Tavern.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 08:35 AM

Phhhhhzzzztttt!

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Josher Via the back door
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 11:20 AM

This is getting silly

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 11:35 AM

back again peek a boo!

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: MudGuard
Date: 28 Jan 05 - 06:12 AM

Something is different today - Mudcat is still up ;-)

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: Bassic
Date: 28 Jan 05 - 06:23 AM

Shhhhhh!! Dont say anything else it might go away again ;-)

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Giok
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 06:16 AM

We seem to be using the back door again, that's two days running for me. Is the bug back again?
Giok [Open that tavern]

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 06:31 AM

I'm still trying to look into this but the idea that funweb products is the cause becomes increasingly unlikely.

Can anyone point me to a recent (the other link is to old) link to an article that would support the argument that funweb products are driving web masters crazy? I can find plenty from a users point of view and I wholeheartedly agree that one should get rid of it but I have been unable to find an article from the hosts side - except that it carries the minor irritation of lengthening the browser details with the addtion of "funweb products" - a slight addition of length to the server logs. That's how I see it on my own logs and I don't get the supporting "assult" evidence.

I also become more and more baffled as to why this program should be singling out just one MC server.

I'm addtionally baffled as the first report of the problems here started with "website under construction". This could be consistant with Allan C's report of a new installation but I find it incredibly hard to believe something like funweb could have deleted index.html or other default page.

Jon

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Leadfingers
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 06:42 AM

I logged into the Cat in the normal way at o920 gmt - Quick look - No One in Chat so had a browse through the forum . At about ten fifteen
It became impossible to get any threads up , although the 'back' button put me back to the forum . I logged out , and couldnt get back in except through '99' (The Back Door) . This would seem to tie in with the suggestion that someone is coming in mid morning and blowing the whole thing up !

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,eric the frustrated
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 06:49 AM

I experience this every day, OK early to mid morning then it goes down.

eric

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 06:50 AM

I had a very similar experience to Leadfingers' - it pooped out on me in the middle of trying to post to the Carolyn Hester thread, which I eventually did through the back door (which will pinpoint the time).

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 06:54 AM

Interesting, Leadfingers. That would blow my thoughts of a different installation away if it is timed.

I still do not believe it is funweb (however undesirable it is) doing the damage though.

If anyone can point me to the evidence I've asked for, I would be greatful as if I'm wrong, I could too find I suffer.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,JennyO
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 07:24 AM

I agree with you Jon - I have serious doubts about it being anything to do with funwebproducts, and like I have been saying all along, there is definitely a pattern to it, timewise. I don't think it's somebody logging on. I think it's more likely something internal that is timed. I don't know enough about computers to make a guess as to what it could be though.

Also, as I have said before, I don't think we have yet heard the real reason for what is happening - if in fact, anyone knows what the real reason is.

Meanwhile, I guess we should open up Backdoor Tavern 99 again.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 07:37 AM

Apologies Jenny, not that I can do anything about a MC problem, perhaps I should have "listened" to you more carefully than I did when you gave your observations a few weeks ago. At that point, I thought the timing was the "tired server" - one that may last out a few hours but would not last out over night and the start up time does seem to tie in line with Max getting up to re-boot. The comments here do suggest that it may be more than that but I haven't a clue what.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,JohnInKansas
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 08:59 AM

Jon –

The link that Max posted re the FunWebProducts was a NetworkWorldFusion commentary by Mark Gibbs, marked as a Network World Applications Newsletter, 12/10/03. ( http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/web/2003/1208web2.html ). I'm sure you've seen that one already.

I agree that it seemed like rather old news, but it may just be the best short explanation that was available for Max to post. In the absence of further explanation from Max, it must be assumed that he found something on the 'cat servers to implicate FunWeb; but he's the only one who knows.

There are numerous "product makers" who's reputations are no better than FunWeb's. The typical difficulty with many of them arisises from their practice of allowing virtually anyone to "bundle" or "embed" their bot/search/hijack components into arbitrary other "free stuff." The makers make no attempt to control who uses their "engines" so it's impossible to tell who's actually responsible. Of course the core engine that gets used is identifiable, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they directly intended the use that appears. One other similar maker is 180Solutions, cited as the culprit in the recent COAST Collapse ( eWeek at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1761466,00.asp )

The "symptom" I get is that mudcat is up and running. I get a "web site contacted, waiting for reply." Usually the "progess bar" indicates intermittent clusters being sent, but I'm on a LAN connection so I don't get a meaningful byte count. Progress stalls, and the connection just sits there.

My amateur reading of this is that a request for connection has priority and is answered. The page requested starts sending, but can be interrupted if a higher priority request appears, i.e. a new request for connection. When the transmission to me is interrupted, my request goes to a que until it's next in line for response. If there's too much traffic, the que fills and my request probably gets pushed off the bottom – or the traffic just prevents my request from ever getting back to the top of the que.

A possible mudcat-specific explanation might be that Max doesn't have a large enough que to handle peak traffic, and/or doesn't have "que full" detection and/or overflow handling set up optimally. I've seen some vague comments about the possibility of managing the que so that a "senior request" gets moved up in priority, but that kind of management appears to require a few extra bells and whistles.

The regular appearance of the problem seems to be just about the time London goes to work, or perhaps at morning tea break, so it's possible that it's a simple "too many Brits" thing. While that's a politically popular opinion, the posted traffic doesn't really show that much of a bump.

If the 'cat is being hit with an indexing/search utility, I can speculate that something of this sort might have special effects on the 'cat. Sending results home probably must be "scheduled" for any non-trivial site, since otherwise the receiving site would have to have a continously open connection to every site it's searching. The roughly 04:00 – 05:00 US Eastern time would be a reasonable time for typical US sites if the bot is looking for a time when US traffic is low. (That's 01:00 – 02:00 Western US time)

The regular appearance might also be because one user, who comes in at a regular time, is dropping the same specific and unusually disruptive bot at the same time every, or nearly every, day.

Most search engines rely on following links to find what's on a site. Every page at the 'cat has, typically, a dozen of more links at the top for related info, a list of posts with a link to each post, each post has a link to the person posting – which also executes search. Each request to open a link is a "new request to connect" which has priority at the top of the que. So how much traffic happens if "someone or something" goes to the 'cat at 04:00 every day and says "open all the links?" The search behavior of a crudely programmed bot might not even be visible at many sites, but at the 'cat I can see a very stuffed buffer.

Plausible(?), but of course no proof. (Of course, I may not understand how this stuff works, and I'll go with the experts when they're ready to talk.)

John

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 09:20 AM

"In the absence of further explanation from Max, it must be assumed that he found something on the 'cat servers to implicate FunWeb; but he's the only one who knows."

Agreed John.

The problems I have there though are that I have mudcat members vist the Annexe, and even though I'm on a shared hosting server I do get to view my own raw logs and there is evidence to support mudcat members having funweb. What I don't see is anything that would support the notion that it is hammering either me or my host.

That, coupled with the fact that I can't find any current article suggesting web masters are being driven crazy all over the world by funweb is sufficient for me to think Max has read this one wrongly.

I could be wrong of course...

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,JohnInKansas
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 11:35 AM

Jon -

Relative to those who log on to the regular 'cat site, the catters who go to your site when the 'cat is too busy to connect are probably a very small subpopulation. It could just be that the one (or more) who have, or have had, the bug just aren't in that group.

And, as I suggested, even if Max has found the "FunWeb" search engine, it could have been attached or embedded in almost anything, if I read how these things work and are being used. From what I've seen/heard, there's virtually no "pure FunWeb" stuff very active, as mostly it's bundled into downloaders, pornsite logins, etc., by individual "site mismanagers" and it's freely available to anyone who wants to mangle it. There's also the difficulty that FunWeb has quite a few different programs available for people to misuse, so you may just be seeing "the good ones," or just not seeing the isolated mismangled one(s).

I would expect that a typical search bot would try to collect a few bits of stuff and send it's findings home immediately. I would also expect that it might incorporate a "try again later" if it ran into too much info or didn't get a connection "at home," since otherwise it could stall and/or swamp the receiving site. Given the 'cat heavy use of links, everything is linked to everything else, tied up into loops and knots of links, so a search bot that blindly follows links is going to end up trying to send the entire 'cat server back multiple times. It may have a "time out and try again" that just turns it on and makes it "run til failure and reschedule" - or some such mechanism, that makes it come back every morning to try again?

Most sites have a few, or even quite a few, links that go somewhere, and maybe go to a page with a few additional links, but on most sites the links end somewhere - or lead off the site. On the 'cat no chain of links ever ends. I know that there are mechanisms to limit the depth of search by bots, but if the searchers are as dumb as implied by what I've seen about the FunWeb machines, I'd not be surprised if the 'cat server is full of the little vermin, happily spawning new bots and looking for the end of the links - and there ain't any ends.

Or it may just be too many Brits having tea.(?)

Of course, again, I'm just imagining what might be, so it's of no real help to the stranded 'catters or to Max.

John

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 12:18 PM

John,

There is no probability about the sub population. I only get a fraction - 500th or maybe less that that of regualrish posters here,

What I would expect to find if I was getting hit by a MC member wuth funweb products on if it is doing the sort of hits I'd imagine would be needed to break a site would be evidence like that one "visitor" had been to everywhere and to every thread in a short time. Such evidence does not exist and being, as you rightly say, quiet, it does make it very easy for me to search through my logs.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 12:32 PM

Of course my bigger problem is not one of reading the logs but not managing to google and find an article leading one way or other, Such supporting evidence really would be handy.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 12:40 PM

Jon -

If the search bot spawns a new bot to follow a branching thread, only one "visitor" would be required, and only one "parent" bot need be deposited. There might well be an "incubation period" but with the 'cat structure of crosslinked and never ending strings of links, any replication of bots would soon - or eventually - lead to massive crowds of the vermin.(?)

My understanding is that the "reputable" search indexing people usually place a bot at a known place, with instructions to search "n deep" and then go home. When the bot dies, they launch a new one with similar limited range if there are unexplored links they want to check out. An indexing system that tries to use "free-roaming" bots, especially if they rely on surreptitious "planting" as FunWeb apparently does (and several others do), would likely be able to "benefit" if the bots could replicate. Even with very slow replication, this could easily saturate the resources of a site like the cat. They don't know where their bots are, so they'd need to make them persistent.

Still just guessing.

John

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:05 PM

John, even then, I would expect an explosion in the size of my logs at sommme time, even if I wasn't able to detect it.

Regardless of that sort of thing, the lack of a google result indicating others have the same problem remains my biggest concern,

The other is that only one of two Mudcat servers gets it, I know of no other site that does, etc. and as for resources available, surely on £50 pa, I'm smaller than MC and have less to play with by far?

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: Steve in Sidmouth
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:09 PM

There are times I can't get mudcat but I agree there are other sites that have become slow or simply inaccessible recently. Hotmail.com is virtually unusable on both my computers running IE5.5 or IE6. Pages get half way loaded then just hang and will not refresh. They work OK using Firefox - but very occasionally I get the same problem using this browser too. Why I ask myself. Most other sites are fine. Hotmail.co.uk (a new site) is much faster, I guess because it is a different and less heavily used server. Ebay is quicker with Firefox. Don't understand it.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:29 PM

Jon -

I don't generally go into the "webmeister" sites, so I don't know much about what they talk about, except what arrives in the couple of newletters I get. The "user help" sites do have quite a lot of chatter from people who have difficulty getting rid of Fun Ware stuff. The difficulty is that the "FunWare" kits can be bundled into any kind of crudware someone wants to attach it to, so you can't really tell much about what additional felons are actually responsible for spreading a specific version, or whether the removal difficulties are Fun Ware design or something someone's tacked on.

Since COAST collapsed, about the only semi-organized anticrud group I've hit on has been Alliance of Security Analysis Professionals. I don't know anything about the "Alliance" although I see several individual "help" web sites that I recognize by name.

Several of the "members" linked in the sidebar require a login to look at what they've got, so I haven't gone to many of them. One "member site" with whom I happen to have some familiarity, TomCoyote, shows 51 hits for a site search for "Fun Web" (0 for FunWeb). The few I looked at seem to be all individuals trying to get rid of search toolbars. Apparently there are several "added gimmicks" in stuff that bundles the Fun Ware components into some of their own stuff.

Nothing too helpful, I'm afraid.

Incidentally, the main site is back up apparently. I got in at about 11:40 or so Central US time (~12:40 'cat time), if you're still on the other server.

John

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:31 PM

Loads of possibilities Steve, including spyware & adware slowing up a computer. Please don't let my doubts about this particular diagnosis put you off considering a program like spybot. Even when I was on Windows I managed to muddle through without a need but it wasn't so long back Pip asked me to look at hers (for those that know the machines, I'd say a 1ghz machine was running more like a 486) and what I found on it was a sort of horror story - it was no wonder things were slow and it took me hours by hand to get it clean again.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:36 PM

Off for an after tea sleep now but thanks John. That's about all I've come up with too - users either being advised to or wanting to get shut of the pest.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 02:55 AM

I resent the remark that it is the fault of us 'Brits drinking too much tea'....

I hate tea and consequently never drink the stuff..

But Mudcat goes down on me quite regularly : )!

LTS

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 05:05 AM

Lucky you!!

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: Peace
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 05:07 AM

Be still my beating heart.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 05:20 AM

That's it 10:15 UK time on the dot, seized up again. Max must be tearing his hair out. I'm still a bit curious that this round of problems although blamed on Fun Web coincided with a new bit of software, anyway good luck Max in sorting it out.
Giok

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 05:25 AM

It was 3:15 AM Alberta time. Same thing.

Brucie

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Crystal
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 05:26 AM

I agree, 10:15ish and it goes kaput!
Maybe we should keep a record of this!

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Azizi
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 05:34 AM

I tried at 5:31 AM Eastern time...and couldn't get in the front door..

but it may have been locked before then.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Azizi
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 05:36 AM

I could ask Brucie don't you have better things to do at 3:15 AM..
But I guess he could ask me the same thing at 5:31 AM..

So I'll keep my mouth shut ;o))


Azizi

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 05:57 AM

"I agree, 10:15ish and it goes kaput!
Maybe we should keep a record of this!"

Won't find anything to play it on. Keep a CD instead.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,wrinkles
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 06:31 AM

well I must admit I'm getting used to this

Mudcat is down in the nornings after about 10am or so (UK Time) abd back up around sometine in the after noon and one has to used the back door.

It's like dealing with a manager who dosn't want to pay you!

Wrinkles

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 07:24 AM

I suppose it provides a good way of demonstrating that, when picky people like me complain about GUESTs, it's not GUESTs we are complaining about, just the ones who insist on not putting anything in the "From" box.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 07:25 AM

...like I'm doing here.

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,pavane
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 08:23 AM

So why is the 'backdoor' not susceptible to this problem? Is it related to the login process? Is that the only difference?

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,Giok 99
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 08:31 AM

You're very picky today Mr McGrath!

Subject: RE: What's up with Mudcat this time!!???
From: GUEST,JohnInKansas
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 09:09 AM

The backdoor is on a different server. And the reason you don't have (can't get) a cookie here is that all the login stuff is on the server that's bogged down. If you ask for a cookie here, this server has to go to that server to make you one, and this server can't get into that server any better than we can.

If you come back in through the backdoor when the main server is accessible, you can get a cookie here - but then you'll have to get another one when you go back to the main server. (been there, done that, just to check it out)

The main complaints I found on the web that are remotely similar are all about the "new" MSN bot. I don't find many that complain about the traffic. Mostly just people that don't want MSN stomping around in their servers.

Three or four descriptions of similar buffer stuffing from bots weren't able to identify the crawler that's causing it. One estimate is that there are over n,000 crawlers out there from decent law-abiding search engines, and quite a few individual users have their own home-made ones; but none of these seem to cause much problem.

Three complaints about heavy traffic all appeared to point to some lawyer that hit once, copied everything on the site, and never came back. Apparently the same lawyer in two of the three. Copyright chaser?

One possibly applicable note that a hard limit on the number of processes the server can start might keep the server from stalling, but it would mean you'd get an error message if the que was full instead of just looking at a blank screen. The experts who were discussing it didn't seem able to come with how to limit the number, and I don't know how similar their front end is to what Max is using now.

John