I thought that IEBCOPY being authorized was due to a (possible archaic) facility to invoke certain I/O appendage routines.
IDCAMS and its subcommands must be able to invoke auth services to satisfy certain invocations - no surprise to find it in AUTHPGM. Rob Scott Lead Developer Rocket Software 275 Grove Street * Newton, MA 02466-2272 * USA Tel: +1.617.614.2305 Email: [email protected] Web: www.rocketsoftware.com -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield Sent: 14 October 2010 19:44 To: [email protected] Subject: Why some programs are authorized Was: Mainframe hacking? This has been a curiosity of mine of late. Why are on some systems, for example DELETE and LISTCAT authorized in IKJTSOxx? And some systems they aren't? -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Clark Morris Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Mainframe hacking? For example, why do IDCAMS and IEBCOPY have to be authorized? The IEBCOPY replacement doesn't have to be authorized. Would it be worthwhile for both vendors and users to see what they can do to reduce the amount of code that has to be authorized? Clark Morris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
