Don't *think* so. My (so to speak) program still works just fine. Charles
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:53 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: IEBCOPYO (was: APF-authorized ...) On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:37:46 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >> Also, what benefit comes from changing IEBCOPY from AC(1) to AC(0)? > >HUGE benefit! > >I am responsible for a vendor program that installs APF-authorized *solely* >because it needs to call IEBCOPY. > I don't see that benefit. If you now mark your program AC(0), it could call the AC(1) IEBCOPY which would simply run unauthorized. In fact, you would be relieved of the burden of coding to APF criteria. OTOH, a vendor with a program which: o Uses IEBCOPY o Must be AC(1) for reasons not related to IEBCOPY ... is now impacted in that calling IEBCOPY causes his program to lose authorization/ ABEND/whatever. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
