inal Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> > Behalf Of William J Bishop
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 10:24 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: FW: OPS/MVS
> >
> > It has been a whi
cussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of William J Bishop
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 10:24 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: FW: OPS/MVS
>
> It has been a while since I supported OPS/MVS, but where I was, there was a
> security environm
Thanks Bill
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of William J Bishop
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 10:24 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: OPS/MVS
It has been a while since I supported OPS/MVS, but where I
It has been a while since I supported OPS/MVS, but where I was, there was a
security environment built with OPS Rules. It was based upon the userid of
the requestor and was set to allow or disallow functions with OPS/MVS.
I think the rules dataset we used ended in 'security.rules'.
We would upda
I'm in a shop that the person that setup OPS/MVS is gone.
So I went looking and found that the SYSTEM is using FACILITY.
What am I missing? It's has to be something minor and stupid
From: Beaver, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 10:07 AM
Subject: OPS/MVS
Current OPSVIEW c
