On 6-Jan-05, at 3:34 PM, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> Unless its some kind of worm, my guess might involve the words firefox
> and pipelining, and the number 1.0.  Except I'd kind of expect that to
> have the opposite effect, and plus your webserver would have to
> support it too.

I wouldn't expect that Firefox would have any sort of significant 
impact on the world as far as webservers goes... At least not 
intuitively.

> You haven't updated or changed the NAT/firewall, but has someone
> updated the website?  Perhaps scattered lots more small images on it
> or something?
>
Not that I know of but it's a good point...  I assume 64k is a hard 
limit for NAT entries...