> On Aug 24, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Paul Gilmartin > <0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 12:17:29 -0400, Tony Harminc wrote: >> >> No - never. AMASPZAP (IMASPZAP before MVS, i.e. before 1972, and before the >> notion of APF authorization) was always subject to dataset protection (via >> passwords, long before RACF), ... >> > Is AMASPZAP linked AC=1? It would seem that there's no need for that > nowadays: > AC=0 with suitable data set and programmer profiles should suffice. Gil: somewhere along the time frame. There was (were) an integrity apar(s?) taken for not allowing a dsn=‘0404040404 etc’. Its lost in the hazy memories but I could be wrong (don’t think so).
Ed > > (To wit, IEBCOPY nowadays is AC=0(?), but it allows updating protected data > sets subject to RACF profiles.) The AC=1 with IEBCOPY issue was fixed years ago as it needed an IO appendage. It was removed. It had *nothing to do (per se)* with dataset updating. > > -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
