On Monday, 12/05/2005 at 02:44 CET, Colin Allinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have kept quiet and not bothered to argue about this since I think the way I > was flamed was unnecessary
[snip] > 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. Ah, Colin, you weren't flamed. I am sorry that I failed to include the appropriate smileys in my first post, but I was smiling the whole time! :-) My apologies. I am well-known in Certain Circles for my retentiveness about modified PROFILE EXECs, private copies of TCPIP DATA on the A-disk, copying IBM DTCPARMS to the 198, and other such things that cause our phone to ring. I just want to head off any potential problems. (But no one listens to me if I just say "There's a better way ...", so a little hyperbole sneaks in!) To highlight the more important thread in the posts, the way you copied the module to the A-disk each time the server started is *exactly* the right way to do that and is the same technique that should be used for those who need a modified TCPIP DATA (or any other one-off copy of a configuration file) for a particular server. For modules, it obviates the need for source mods and it lets you to pick up PTFs with no fuss, no muss. For configuration files, you don't have to remember to make changes in more than one file. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
