On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Paul Gilmartin < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 12:12:50 -0500, John McKown wrote: > > >On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > > > >> Are entries in SYS1.BRODCAST timestamped so they could be aged out? > >No. > > > >This originated back is MVT days. MVT did not really have an API for > >dynamic allocation. The data set was "fake opened" (i.e. code other than > >OPEN found the DSN & extents, and built an "open" DCB and associated > DEB.) > >The DCB was in common storage so that the SEND command could just write to > >the DSN using it. Much like what CA-1 does with the TMC. > > > Seems like an integrity nightmare. > It was designed long before IBM issued any of their security assurances. Also, I am saying that is how it was done WAY BACK WHEN. I don't know how it is done now. I would __guess__ (SWAG), with individual TSO broadcast data sets, that the SEND command now uses standard DYNALLOC / OPEN and so on. > > It's past overdue to trade it for a dog, then shoot the dog. > Dog has been upgraded to Cerberus quality. > > >> UNIX facilities could be your friend here, even as UNIX batch jobs > simply > >> append their logs to the user's mbox. > > -- gil > -- Veni, Vidi, VISA: I came, I saw, I did a little shopping. Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
