Re: PROFILEs [was: CP MSG/MSGNOH from SMTP]

[Colin Allinson]

I have kept quiet and not bothered to argue about this since I think the way I was flamed was unnecessary but, as the thread has continued I would like to make the following points :-

1.        On checking back this was put in place before Alan's magic date of 1998.

2.        I had forgotten but we also had another cludge to ensure that we ran the IBM profile EXEC (in its unmodified entirety) after our initial set-up. Incidentally, this code also ensures that it is the latest version supplied version of the SMTPPRO EXEC that is run.

3.        I am not sure if (:Exit./TCPRUNXT) was available at the time. If it was then I was not aware of it at that time.

4.        Yes, We could have included the code in the SYSPROF with a special section for the SMTP server but (rightly or wrongly) decided not to.

5.        If our local code had been overlaid with a modified IBM PROFILE EXEC then the worst that would happen would be that the messages would restart and the issue would need to be revisited. This is also true of incompatible changes in the SMTP MODULE.

6.        In the flurry of discussion about methods the point that has been lost is that this allowed us to selectively process messages and decide what happened to them. Clearly, this is something that needs maintenance as messages change.

I am quite happy to accept that there may be better ways to include own code in the set-up of the SMTP server and I would not wish to encourage others break IBM's strict "Hands Off" stance. However I think the comments made went far beyond pointing out that this was the incorrect way to do something that could be done better another way.

OK - I have had my say. I don't want to get into a protracted discussion on this so will not comment further.

Colin Allinson
Amadeus Data Processing