Was it using tape?
Marcy "This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation." -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [IBMVM] LOGOFF/FORCE PENDING For all of you who are sitting on pins and needles awaiting the outcome of our incident, you can get off the pin cushion now. After several hours, but before a dump could be taken, the logoff completed. There is no incident. The secret is still safe. (Get that grin off of your face, Chuckie!) Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Wade > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:32 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: LOGOFF/FORCE PENDING > > I do, but only for fun.... > > Dave > G4UGM > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard > > Sent: 01 October 2009 00:11 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: LOGOFF/FORCE PENDING > > > > > > Are you still using a system that has the DMK prefix? > > > > Regards, > > Richard Schuh > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of P S > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 3:58 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: LOGOFF/FORCE PENDING > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Rich Greenberg > <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > On: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 03:22:49PM -0700,Wandschneider, > > > Scott Wrote: > > > > > > > > } Please keep the list posted with any updates to this > > subject. I, > > > > for } one, am *very* interested in your PMR. As I recall > > this has > > > > been a } nagging problem since the VM/370 days. As I > > update our VM > > > > systems I am } taking the FORCE command away by changing > > > its privilege > > > > class, but in } the process have upset operations and > > > others as their > > > > procedures } actually call for forcing users off, instead > > > of logging > > > > on, then logging } them off. > > > > > > > > Scott et al, > > > > Have the operators do a: > > > > > > > > CP SEND CP target LOGOFF > > > > > > > > BEFORE doing a FORCE. Much safer. > > > > > > Doubtful. Since DMK, a FORCE has consisted of "Set the logoff bit > > > and stack a CPEBK to go to the dispatcher". So no real > > difference. > > > > > > Now, in DMK-time... > > > = >
