No, no, @Peter, that's not my point. System messages are system messages and I don't have to like them but they are what they are. I get to vent here but I accept that they are highly unlikely to change.
My point below is relative only to IEBCOPY. IGG0nnnW messages are documented as resulting in a return code 4. IEBCOPY is failing to do that. The documentation matches what you said. The behavior does not match the documentation. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Relson Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 4:59 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Two related alias entry address questions >IGG01557W That's hardly a smoking gun, unless I am misunderstanding. Unless your smoking gun is having utility messages within "system messages" and you think that IBM will think it's worth the $$ to put them somewhere else (let alone deal with a case about it). Maybe the rule is that "system utilities" messages are included within "system messages". If so, I was obviously wrong about my expectations. This is a message from a utility. The rules that it uses, that you showed, match what I had said. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
