Re: IBM-MAIN Digest - 15 Sep 2017 to 16 Sep 2017 (#2017-259)

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 12:00 AM, IBM-MAIN automatic digest system < lists...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > There are 3 messages totaling 156 lines in this issue. > > Topics of the day: > > 1. STC - APF - confusion (2) > 2. re-Initialize different types of VSAM files > >

Re: GETMSG null with out ADABAS command

Jorge Garcia wrote: > Apologies. Event Publisher is an IBM product. Non a ISV. Below the trace > result of REXX execution with TRACE I: Never mind. ;-) After looking at both your two posts with Trace On, I have one question: If you do this command just that on SDSF, can you see the results on

GETMSG null with out ADABAS command

Hi all, We're trying to execute a REXX with a GETMSG statement to trap the out of ADABAS or event Publisher command (Software AG products). We can't trap anything. Below the REXX executed TRACE I "CONSOLE DEACTIVATE"

Re: GETMSG null with out ADABAS command

Jorge Garcia wrote: > We're trying to execute a REXX with a GETMSG statement to trap the out of > ADABAS or event Publisher command (Software AG products). We can't trap > anything. Below the REXX executed >TRACE I Try TRACE A Yes, you will get

Re: GETMSG null with out ADABAS command

Versión with Richard's advice: 3 *-* "CONSOLE DEACTIVATE" >L> "CONSOLE DEACTIVATE" IKJ55307I THE CONSOLE COMMAND HAS TERMINATED.+ IKJ55307I A CONSOLE SESSION IS NOT

Re: GETMSG null with out ADABAS command

I agree with Elardus. My getcode looks like this: getcode = GETMSG('issue_back.','SOL',Cart_V,,time_value) Random CART values avoid collisions. I supply a default time value *but* override it with a much higher value when I know it takes a while to get the results back from the issued command.

Re: GETMSG null with out ADABAS command

Hi Elardus, Apologies. Event Publisher is an IBM product. Non a ISV. Below the trace result of REXX execution with TRACE I: 3 *-* "CONSOLE DEACTIVATE" >L> "CONSOLE DEACTIVATE" IKJ55307I THE CONSOLE COMMAND HAS TERMINATED.+

Rexx SDSF (was: Question about question)

(The Subject: might usefully have been more specific.) On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 16:36:09 +0200, Mike Beer wrote: >You might want to try REXXLA - the Rexx Language Association > No. That would address the Rexx language generally, not the SDSF interface. >-Original Message- >From: Peter Ten

Re: [IBMTCP-L] Unable to resolve server name function= GETADDRINFO

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 08:13:37 +0530, Jake Anderson wrote: > >Is it possible to run only one SMTP address space in a sysplex. Where the >SMTP service can be used by either 1 LPAR in a sysplex ? > Outgoing: One, or even none. On VM/CMS I've successfully tested sending outbound mail with a TCPCLIENT

Re: Unable to resolve server name function= GETADDRINFO

Do you have, AI_NUMERICHOST, flag set? For, GETADDRINFO, from: "z/OS Communications Server: IP Sockets Application Programming Interface Guide and Reference" SC27-3660-00 " node The host name or IP address. If the value of the node parameter is an IP address, you also must issue the

Re: Question about question

Thanks, question posted. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GETMSG null with out ADABAS command

The statement was made that GETMSG can capture any lines sent to the console, but I've had problems in the past retrieving responses to MODIFY commands. MODIFY requests a task to issue a message, but I'm not sure that the resulting message is necessarily recognized as a 'response' to an MVS

Re: GETMSG null with out ADABAS command

Jorge Garcia wrote: >Hi Elardus, below I answer your questions: >> >I can see the message in SYSLOG >DES1 OPERLOG DES1 09/18/201710W COLUMNS 01- 80 >COMMAND INPUT ===>SCROLL ===> CSR

Re: GETMSG null with out ADABAS command

Jorge, Try this logic. It completes the GETMSG logic *before* attempting the SAY getcode = 0 Do while getcode = 0/* get console message */ getcode = GETMSG('salida.','SOL',Cart_V,,time_value) If getcode = 0 then Do Do i = 1 to salida.0 k = i + j

Re: Unable to resolve server name function= GETADDRINFO

Hi Is the 'AI_NUMERICHOST' flag set from the product perspective which is trying to use SMTP ? Sorry being ignorant as I haven't seen this being set in TCPIP service On 18-Sep-2017 9:06 PM, "Nims,Alva John (Al)" wrote: > Do you have, AI_NUMERICHOST, flag set? > > For,

Re: Would encryption have prevented known major breaches?

I encrypt my SSN by making up a new one every time some ahole asks for it. On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Phil Smith wrote: > Jack J. Woehr wrote: > >Okay, I have the answer to the Equifax question. > >I obtained the answer by the simple act of freezing my records on all >

Re: Rexx SDSF (was: Question about question)

You could post your question here or go to the TSO-REXX group at http://vm.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?TSO-REXX. -- Donald Grinsell, Systems Programmer Enterprise Technology Services Bureau SITSD/Montana Department of Administration 406.444.2983 (D) Vogonism: (n) originally defined as being

Re: Unable to resolve server name function= GETADDRINFO

I do not believe that this is set at the product level (PARMLIB), but is for the API(?) call. My reasoning and sorry for the "Round About" way I am getting to it. Let's take an example of a TCP/IP commands that accept both a Host Name and a IP Address. I think this because NSLOOKUP which

Re: Unable to resolve server name function= GETADDRINFO

Hi Thank you so much for your explanation. I will continue with my research and come back. Thanks again On 18-Sep-2017 10:00 PM, "Nims,Alva John (Al)" wrote: > I do not believe that this is set at the product level (PARMLIB), but is > for the API(?) call. > > My reasoning and

REXX and SDSF question

I have some rexx code that is working on one z/OS 2.2 LPAR and "partially" on another. The code determines if a CICS region is running and if the desired messages are found in the DD JESMSGLG. This code chunk is what goes out gets the SDSF output: CHECKCICSSTATUS:

Re: Question about question

Peter Ten Eyck wrote: >Where is the best place to post a question about REXX and SDSF coding and >usage? I have some code that I have written and it’s not working "correctly". You have gotten good replies, perhaps you can also try out this discussion list (about 300+ posts this year including

Re: Question about question

Ask these boys, Peter. They seem to have an answer for everything. On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Peter Ten Eyck < peter.tene...@americannational.com> wrote: > Where is the best place to post a question about REXX and SDSF coding and > usage? I have some code that I have written and it’s not

Re: GETMSG null with out ADABAS command

Hi Elardus, below I answer your questions: <> I can see the message in SYSLOG DES1 OPERLOG DES1 09/18/201710W COLUMNS 01- 80 COMMAND INPUT ===>SCROLL ===> CSR NC000 DES1 17261 16:20:04.13 JGARCI1 0290 F

Question about question

Where is the best place to post a question about REXX and SDSF coding and usage? I have some code that I have written and it’s not working "correctly". -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send

Free Using AI from SMF/RMF to Super Charge Performance

Join us for a complimentary IBM Systems Magazine webinar, with content by IntelliMagic, and evolve to intelligent analytics to reduce performance risk, optimize infrastructure costs, and bridge the skills gap. Predictive Intelligence from RMF/SMF for Enhanced Performance & Capacity Planning

Re: ShopzSeries FTP password in the clear

On 9/15/2017 12:21 PM, Tom Conley wrote: On 9/15/2017 9:41 AM, Richards, Robert B. wrote: My cyber security folks are asking me about why I am doing FTPs with the password "in the clear". At first, I did not know what they talking about. It appears that within the SERVINFO data "user=" and

Re: ShopzSeries FTP password in the clear

I guess I don’t understand the problem. Yea, that password is in the clear, but it’s a IBM generated password for that one specific order, good for a few weeks, the entire order is removed anyway? The only time I use that method is when I order CBPDO product upgrades between serverpack

Re: Question about question

You might want to try REXXLA - the Rexx Language Association Best regards Mike -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Ten Eyck Sent: 18 September, 2017 16:31 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Question about

Re: ShopzSeries FTP password in the clear

Kurt, You are correct. I am doing a RFN. I will find out where the Cyber folks are getting their information and get back to you. Stay tuned! Bob -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Kurt Quackenbush Sent: Monday,

Re: Question about question

W dniu 2017-09-18 o 16:30, Peter Ten Eyck pisze: Where is the best place to post a question about REXX and SDSF coding and usage? I have some code that I have written and it’s not working "correctly". The best? I don't know, IMHO the best place is where you'll get help. ;-) However this

Re: Question about question

Yes, I saw that while searching around. The "mainframe" area did not appear to have much recent activity... My question/issue relates to REXX and SDSF. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send

Re: REXX and SDSF question

Yes, I have manually entered the SDSF commands for the STCs not working... and they work (output retrieved). I think that takes care of SDSF and RACF. The REXX exec runs under my id. I did see a difference with the WHO command...COMM=NOTAVAIL as opposed to COMM=ENABLED. Recall that this REXX

Re: REXX and SDSF question

Try QUEUE "OWNER *" not just OWNER -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 1:12 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: REXX and SDSF question Peter Ten Eyck wrote:

OA49446 changed RACF behavior for ALIAS, PATH, and AIX

I'm looking at the HOLDDATA for OA49446.  RACF was changed to do authorization checks against ALIAS, PATH, and AIX names instead of the base names.  There was no migration path specified to get to this new RACF state, except for a chicken switch STGADMIN.IGG.CATALOG.SECURITY.CHANGE.  If you

Re: REXX and SDSF question

Peter Ten Eyck wrote: > QUEUE " DA ALL" > QUEUE " OWNER" > QUEUE " SYSNAME ESA1" > QUEUE " PRE " CICSREGION ... and ... >This works fine on one LPAR and works for something's (possibly just jobs) on >another

Re: OA49446 changed RACF behavior for ALIAS, PATH, and AIX

YMMV, but we've been running with that APAR applied for well over a year without any fallout and didn't define that RACF profile. Pinnacle September 18, 2017 at 2:04 PM I'm looking at the HOLDDATA for OA49446. RACF was changed to do authorization checks

Re: REXX and SDSF question

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:17:47 -0500, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote: >Peter Ten Eyck wrote: > >> "ALLOC FI(ISFOUT) DUMMY" > >I'm curious, why DUMMY? > >Try this out just for tests and see if something appears there: > >"ALLOC FI(ISFOUT) SYSOUT(X)" > Is X a bitbucket class? (I suspect

Re: REXX and SDSF question

Not that it would necessarily fix the problem, but you are using the old SDSF/BATCH product and not the SDSF/REXX interface. SDSF/REXX has parms like ISFPREFIX, ISFOWNER, ISFFILTER. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of

Re: REXX and SDSF question

I have found the issue. STC output is displayed differently (DDs displayed) on this LPAR when viewing it through SDSF launched via the ISPF menu option; compared to SDSF launched via TSO command line. I do not know why, researching.

Re: REXX and SDSF question

This is how it was coded in my starting example code from the Redbook. I changed it to your suggestion, no change, still not getting the output. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to

Re: REXX and SDSF question

Anthony, Good eye. I'm betting you'll be getting the gold star for this one. ☺ Regards. -- Donald Grinsell, Systems Programmer Enterprise Technology Services Bureau SITSD/Montana Department of Administration 406.444.2983 (D) "I would like to see every single soldier on every single side,

Re: REXX and SDSF question

Peter Ten Eyck wrote: > "ALLOC FI(ISFOUT) DUMMY" I'm curious, why DUMMY? Try this out just for tests and see if something appears there: "ALLOC FI(ISFOUT) SYSOUT(X)" Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht --

Re: REXX and SDSF question

Is CICSREGION set properly? What happens if you hard code the region name prefix? Or try it in quotes and SET DISPLAY ON: QUEUE "SET DISPLAY ON" QUEUE "PREFIX "CICSREGION" " -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Ten

Re: REXX and SDSF question

Grinsell, Don wrote: >>Are you accommodating for the different SYSNAMEs that you are processing >>(LPARs) : QUEUE " SYSNAME ESA1" >Good eye. I'm betting you'll be getting the gold star for this one. ☺ I originally missed that one, and of course I will not get a gold star. ;-) Thanks for

Re: REXX and SDSF question

On 9/18/2017 11:43 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: Someone will proudly tell you that (E)JES has a command that shows everything in the spool so you don't need to jump around madly. I don't know whether that likewise covers the Rexx API. Haha! But, of course! [Spoken with an French Occitan accent

Re: REXX and SDSF question

Yes, I have tried that, no change. Recall that this REXX exec is working on the LPAR for CICS regions running as jobs and the commands do work manually. I must be missing something... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /

Re: OA49446 changed RACF behavior for ALIAS, PATH, and AIX

Your post confused me, so I just verified that my understanding was correct. The checks for PATH and AIX were added to the base name check, and do not replace it. Also, I am told nothing was added for ALIAS. Pinnacle wrote: I'm looking at the HOLDDATA for OA49446. RACF was changed to do

Re: REXX and SDSF question

Are you accommodating for the different SYSNAMEs that you are processing (LPARs) : QUEUE " SYSNAME ESA1" -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Barkow, Eileen Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 2:30 PM To:

Re: REXX and SDSF question

Peter Ten Eyck wrote: >I have found the issue. STC output is displayed differently (DDs displayed) on >this LPAR when viewing it through SDSF launched via the ISPF menu option; >compared to SDSF launched via TSO command line. I do not know why, researching. Bravo, you, as a brave detective,

Re: REXX and SDSF question

This is now working for me. I added the SDSF command input on to see all DDs via TSO SDSF and ISPF SDSF: CHECKCICSSTATUS: ADDRESS TSO "ALLOC F(FILEOUT) UNIT(VIO) NEW REUSE", "CYLINDERS SPACE(10 10) RECFM(F B A)" "ALLOC FI(ISFOUT) SYSOUT(Q)" "ALLOC F(ISFIN) UNIT(VIO) NEW

Re: "Breach" (fka Would encryption have prevented known major breaches?)

"Would encryption have prevented known major breaches?" Actually, no, I think it would have made the effects worse. If Equifax had encrypted their data, right now those clowns would be slapping each other on the back and telling themselves, nothing to worry about, no need to report this to anyone,

Re: REXX and SDSF question

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:09:45 -0500, Peter Ten Eyck wrote: >This is now working for me. I added the SDSF command input on to see all DDs >via TSO SDSF and ISPF SDSF: > >CHECKCICSSTATUS: >ADDRESS TSO > "ALLOC F(FILEOUT) UNIT(VIO) NEW REUSE", > "CYLINDERS SPACE(10 10) RECFM(F B A)" > "ALLOC

xkcd, again

https://xkcd.com/1891/ and: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1891 which links to: https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/why-do-floppy-disks-still-exist-the-world-isnt-ready-to-move-on/ -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN

Re: FTP JCL EXAMPLE - FTP PDS

I have been there and I know what you are talking about! Old solutions can also do the job but lets hope there is a new, better spin to that old solution. Best regards Dejan Stamatović CROZ D.O.O. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe /

Re: Snap data to a PDS Question About LIST parameter IEATDUMP

Looks fine to me. But unless you negate the SDATA you will get location zero as well. On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:30:43 -0400 Joseph Reichman wrote: :>First off I didn't realize I would get an IPCS dump :> :>I seemed to have dumped the PSA in other words the address I dumped

Re: REXX and SDSF question

As Gil noted, this is the old pre-API method of running SDSF out of Rexx. There's nothing essentially wrong with the technique except that you have to orchestrate a complete scenario like a line of domino tiles. If anything goes wrong, you have no way to intervene and change direction. The API

Scripted interaction (was: REXX and SDSF question)

On 2017-09-18, at 16:52, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: > As Gil noted, this is the old pre-API method of running SDSF out of Rexx. > There's nothing essentially wrong with the technique except that you have to > orchestrate a complete scenario like a line of domino tiles. If anything goes > wrong,

Scripted interaction (was: REXX and SDSF question)

On 2017-09-18, at 16:52, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: > ... you have to orchestrate a complete scenario like a line of domino tiles. > ... > Thanks for reminding me: Honda - The Cog - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ve4M4UsJQo By some reports (the producers'?), with several hundred

Re: "Breach" (fka Would encryption have prevented known major breaches?)

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 16:48:29 -0700, Phil Smith wrote: > >If we assume that "encrypted" means "using accepted strong encryption", not >"Bob's toy encryption system that any moron could break", then I'm perfectly >comfortable with the several billion years of effort required to decrypt the

Wanted: IBM 7060...

Apologies if this is the wrong venue for this ask- I saw some posts from a few years back where people were clearing these out, and I thought I might try my luck to see if anyone has one they're willing to part with. There is one on eBay at the moment, but it's a little too rich for me. Thanks,

Re: "Breach" (fka Would encryption have prevented known major breaches?)

Beverly Caldwell wrote: >"Would encryption have prevented known major breaches?" Actually, no, I >think it would have made the effects worse. If Equifax had encrypted their >data, right now those clowns would be slapping each other on the back and >telling themselves, nothing to worry about, no