[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       racf-l
Subject:    Re: Users with passwords not satisfying current SETR rules
From:       retired mainframer <retired-mainframer () Q ! COM>
Date:       2013-01-16 17:55:42
Message-ID: 110370AD943641F1949584610B22355D () barryf93b83d71
[Download RAW message or body]

Precisely my point.  Maybe I should have phrased it "anyone who knew the
original password".

:>: -----Original Message-----
:>: From: RACF Discussion List [mailto:RACF-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
:>: Chase, John
:>: Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:58 AM
:>: To: RACF-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
:>: Subject: Re: Users with passwords not satisfying current SETR rules
:>:
:>: > -----Original Message-----
:>: > From: RACF Discussion List On Behalf Of retired mainframer
:>: >
:>: > If the only reason the application needs the password is to submit
:>: jobs, wouldn't it be easier to
:>: > control this with the SURROGAT class?  This would eliminate the
:>: problem you describe.  And if you make
:>: > the user protected, it would prevent anyone who knows the password
:>: from logging on to that user.
:>:
:>: But PROTECTED users don't have passwords....
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]