Ed --- NOT THE POINT.

The Files are ours. We don't want to restrict them to PUTM. PUTM should be value-added for the site, not for restrictions to files We own.

>>
>>I completely understand it. I ran a BBS for a number of years and had to do similar things. But still.... Ick.
>>
>>Maybe it would work just as well to limit downloads to files that HAVEN'T been downloaded 250 times? That way, PUTM's get the first shot at new things, and use poor folk have to wait until the file's been downloaded enough?
>>
>>Of course, its ignoble of me to point out that this restriction just recently started and the UT's performance has been spotty recently. (I didn't say that, someone else must have (INSIDE VOICE, INSIDE VOICE!)
>
>I hate to say it, but ante up; I'm sure you've gotten far more than the cost of a PUTM out of UT!