Hey Charles, I took you seriously the first time. I appreciate your interest
in helping.
Bottom line, I'd like to come up with a job any z/OS customer could run,
without requiring changes to any of their system files (like FTPCDATA or AT-TLS
or RACF) that would allow them to transmit files
And I mean that second paragraph as a serious question : tell me and I will try
to help; not as sarcasm. CharlesSent from a mobile; please excuse the brevity.
Original message From: Charles Mills Date:
9/10/20 3:27 PM (GMT-08:00) To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re:
Consistent with your comment about BPXBATCH, I suspect you will need to run FTP
(via PARM= input) under BPXBATCH (via EXEC PGM=), and then the //STDENV DD
will be read.
HTH,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 16:58:52 -0500, Wendell Lovewell wrote:
>...
>//FTPXFER EXEC PGM=FTP,REGION=4292K,
>//PARM=('POSIX(ON) ALL31(ON)',
>// 'ENVAR("_CEE_ENVFILE=DD:STDENV")/(EXIT')
>
>I'm trying to make this as self-contained as possible, and would like to
>supply the variables via
I have considerable experience in hacking FTP into doing unnatural acts but not
enough of a UNIX person to be totally up-to-speed on using environment
variables.
What is it that you are trying to get FTP to do that PARM= + SYSFTPD DD * +
INPUT DD * will not accomplish?
Charles
-Original
Hello,
I'm setting up a batch job to access our FTP server using FTPS and TLS 1.2.
(Forgive me if that nomenclature is less than perfect.)
I've imported certficates, built a keyring, and come up with a combination of
FTP client parameters that will allow me to connect to the server and upload
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 15:35:37 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>Yes, you can always do multiple precision that way, but there is a performance
>hit, especially from those conditional branches. Maybe we need skip
>instructions such as the 7090 had.
Some computer architectures have an Add-With-Carry
Yes, you can always do multiple precision that way, but there is a performance
hit, especially from those conditional branches. Maybe we need skip
instructions such as the 7090 had.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM
Don't forget the short lived name MPPL.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of CM
Poncelet
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 10:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: REXX
ITYM follow on from EXEC2. Or was Mike working on REX before EXEC2?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Rupert Reynolds
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 8:05 AM
To:
I dunno, though, the first part of it was entertaining. And as I'm not a
systems programmer (I came into mainframe security through the development
door), many of the more on-topic threads here are opaque to me, so the
occasional fight over COBOL or CLIST provides some diversion.
---
Bob
Joe,
How about answering Jim Mulder's question, or do you not even try reading
the documentation before posting questions to the entire IBM-Main team?
You apparently knew what you were looking for. What was the difficulty
with finding it?
And then you didn't even indicate which service you
On 2020-09-10 8:05 PM, Rupert Reynolds wrote:
Confused? Difficult to say--the brash nature of this debate is clouding
things.
Perfect example of bike shedding! A rambling thread where people argue
over stuff that is not really useful! IBMMAIN is difficult to read these
days.
The good stuff
Confused? Difficult to say--the brash nature of this debate is clouding
things.
There is an example above which uses something like ''0001'B to
initialise a variable.
In Rexx, that is not a boolean value. Depending on which interpreter you
use, it is either a byte with contents x'01', which
14 matches
Mail list logo
