Hi Gil. >>Would a unit record device other than PUN (perhaps PIPEd) >>relax that constraint?
>>As I learned Pipelines I adopted the habit of DEFINing a fresh >>UR device rather than saving and restoring the characteristics >>of an existing one (and CONT can't be restored.) The last time I made much use of the CMS version was probably before Pipelines even existed! >>I wrote an ISPF Edit macro to submit with no F-80 limitation. My Kedit macro allows > 80 byte records. But it's not the default, because I use beyond col 80 as line comments that are intentionally stripped off before being FTP'd to JES. (FTP doesn't have the restriction, but I usually wanted it so I could comment in cols 80+) >>> ... And RSCS will (I think) propagate the >>CMS userid as already validated (that might not be the case now). Seems like >>I might have written a JES exit to accept the userid on the spool file as the >>MVS userid for the job when it was read from the virtual card reader. (Same >>disclaimer.) > >>Our admins, rather, replicated the RACF profiles from our TSO >>IDs to our CMS IDs. The problem I had going from CMS to MVS with the userids was that, without an exit, I couldn't propagate the password safely. I think I used a JES exit to handle reader input like it was already authenticated, similar to what RSCS/NJE would do. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
