I know nothing about programming at all. I worked in Real Estate and Escrow and Banking my entire life. I try and fix the tickets that come up it seems I make it worse.
I would love to learn IT but with the zillion other issues this has all created for me for 3 years now I became a basket case and I am trying now to pull my life together and fix this mess surrounding me over computer access being given to so many people the fraud is ridiculous I am threatened my children are bullied this has not been easy. Like I said if it is something I caused by hitting a link I will own that. However when your watching hard drives and burners come in and out your house adding other strange behavior it gets overwhelming and yes at times I panic. I can ot seem to get any help and its not from lack of trying like some think, It is from lack of trust in the system in this county. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Clem Clarke <[email protected]> wrote: > I am afraid I have not been able to follow the whole conversation. > However, it seems that perhaps attaching as a job step may be an answer? > > This is the way the Initiator attaches a program. The Initiator is > authorised, and uses a special attach which will either attach a program in > Problem State, or allow it to keep it's authorised state, if it is being > loaded from an authorised library, and is linked with the appropriate > option. > > This code has been used for 40 years in my enhanced JCL language Jol, from > which I created a program that allows parameters to be passed up to 3,000 > bytes. The program is called LONGPARM and is CBT file number 839. > > The enhanced JCL Language can be seen at www.Oscar-Jol.com > > Here is the part of the code that shows how the Job Step option can be > used. > > ------ > *********************************************************** > * > * > * > * NOW ATTACH PROBLEM PROGRAM. 75311 > * > * Note: We could set up the SCT so that SMF records the "correct" > * program. Wait for user feedback. > * > * > ATTACH LA R1,#PARMPP Get Address of User Parameters > LH R15,#PARMPP Put some blanks at the end > LA R15,2(R1,R15) Point to end of string > MVC 0(20,R15),BLANKS > ST R1,ATASKPRM Store it > OI ATASKPRM,X'80' Set Hi Bit 75311 > LA R1,ATASKPRM Set R1 for Attach 75311 > XC TASKECB,TASKECB CLEAR ECB 75311 > MVC ATTACHL(ATTACHLN),ATTACHW INITIALISE ATTACH > * BECAUSE 'E' FORM DOESN'T INITIALISE > * ALL THE BITS. > ATTACH EPLOC=TASKNAME,ECB=TASKECB,SF=(E,ATTACHL), * > RSAPF=YES, * > JSTCB=YES,MF=(E,(1)) 76200 > LR R5,R1 > WAIT ECB=TASKECB > MVC TASKRETN(1),X'1D'(R5) SHIFT IN ABEND CODE > MVC TASKRETN+1(3),TASKECB+1 AND RETURN CODE > * NOW I'M BACK IN CONTROL,I.E THE SUBTASK FINISHED. > * WHAT AM I TO DO NOW ? > ST R5,CALLAREA > DETACH CALLAREA > TABEND TM TASKRETN,128 NORMAL RETURN FOR TASK? 75003 > BNO TESTGOBK YES,SO TEST GOBACK TO OS INDIC 76200 > IC R7,TASKRETN SET R7 = ABEND CODE > L R1,TASKRETN LOAD TASKRETN TO REG 1 > ABEND (1) > * N R1,=X'00FFFFFF' LEAVE RETURN CODE > TESTGOBK EQU * > SPACE 3 > RETNOS EQU * > LH R10,TASKRETN+2 LOAD 2ND 2 BYTES OF RETURN CODE > BADRETN EQU * > L R7,4(R13) LOAD R7 WITH PREVIOUS SAVEAREA ADDRESS > LR R1,R13 LOAD R1 WITH THE ADDRESS OF GOTTEN > * STORAGE > FREEMAIN R,LV=CONEND-CONSTART,A=(1) > LR R13,R7 SET R13=OLD SAVE > LR R15,R10 SET UP RETURN CODE > L R14,12(13) AND RETURN ADDRESS > LM R0,R12,20(R13) AND OLD REGISTERS > BR R14 AND BACK WE GO > * > ------ > > > Clem Clarke > > > Robin Atwood wrote: > >> Yes, the point was taken. I am now investigating using fork() to spin-off >> another address space. >> >> Thanks >> Robin >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Peter Relson >> Sent: 23 May 2017 00:24 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: ATTACH with RSAPF=YES >> >> As best I can tell (unless I missed it), the OP has not answered the >> question of whether they understand that after doing something to remove >> authorization from the space, they are OK with leaving the space >> unauthorized. If that is not the case, we might as well end the >> discussion >> because there is no way to do that while maintaining system integrity, and >> it is unlikely anyone would accept such a "solution". >> >> Walt Farrell has pointed out approaches that are conceivably OK. >> >> ATTACH with RSAPF=YES should be off the table. >> >> Peter Relson >> z/OS Core Technology Design >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email >> to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
