There's no point in addressing Mr Metz since he does not read my posts. So to all interested polite subscribers
> > IBM suggests UACC(NONE) for them <VTAMLST libraries> > Why? If Mr Metz did read my posts, he would know that the "why" is not provided in Table 48, "UACC values for system data sets" in the z/OS Security Server RACF Security Administrator's Guide manual. If, on the other hand, "why" applies to why Juan is asking the question, some hint of the answer may be provided in the initial post of the thread "Product libraries and UACC" in RACF-L posted last Thursday. Chris Mason On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 16:07:01 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) <[email protected]> wrote: >In <[email protected]>, >on 03/09/2012 > at 09:00 AM, Juan Mautalen <[email protected]> said: > >>We currently have our VTAMLST libraries protected with UACC(READ). >>IBM suggests UACC(NONE) for them > >Why? > ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
