On Dec 18, 2007, at 5:30 PM, Thompson, Steve wrote:
------------SNIP------------
Has something changed?
<SNIP>
We seem to have a problem with RACF in this case. The JOB gets to the
receiving node and gets a syntax error. However, my point is, the JOB
card was invalid to start, it and the rest of the JOB should never
have
been shipped. If you want blind ship then use /*XMIT not /*XEQ
We used both *EXTENSIVELY*. We were pretty locked down with ACF2. I
reviewed the rules almost every other month, except the system stuff
and I reviewed that every other week personally. I was almost
paranoid with all the NJE activity and we logged quite a bit and I
reviewed the loggings daily.
One of the items on my checklist was to be there (on site) whenever
we put a new release (MVS) for at least one production cycle to find
out any issues with new, well undocumented "gotcha's" that pop up. I
could not write rules but we nipped a few issues in the bud before it
became a political nightmare. I was proud of the rules and how clean
I kept them. Yes I was a PITA to the security people but the auditors
loved me. I was never able to rope the security into camping out with
me. I think they were afraid of the # of hours I managed to stay.
Ws
Regards,
Steve Thompson
-- All opinions expressed by me are my own and may not necessarily
reflect those of my employer. --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
