IN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no
member list)
W dniu 20.01.2021 o 20:35, Seymour J Metz pisze:
> Whoosh! What is in dispute is the ludicrous claim '"Illegal" from SMP/E point
> of view'. Aps have *never* been Illegal fro
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin [000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 11:25 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no
member list)
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 10:03:01 -0600, Wendell
du/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
R.S. [r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 12:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no
member list)
W dniu
du/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
R.S. [r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 1:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no
member list)
W dniu 20.01.20
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:13:44 -0500, David Spiegel wrote:
>"... Formerly some utilities (Linkage Editor?) imposed a limit of 3120. ..."
>Linkage Editor //SYSLIN had a Max BLKSIZE of 3200.
>
I stand corrected.
Damn! So I was needlessly using 3120 all those years.
It's mentioned (in an example)
: 616.653.2717
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of R.S.
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 1:03 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no
member list)
**CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL**
**DO NOT open
"... Formerly some utilities (Linkage Editor?) imposed a limit of 3120. ..."
Linkage Editor //SYSLIN had a Max BLKSIZE of 3200.
On 2021-01-20 11:25, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 10:03:01 -0600, Wendell Lovewell wrote:
Could you please elaborate on your comment "never solved issue
Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
R.S. [r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 12:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no
member list)
W dniu 20.01.2021 o 18:10, Seymour J
] on behalf of
R.S. [r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 12:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no
member list)
W dniu 20.01.2021 o 18:10, Seymour J Metz pisze:
>> There are ZAPs to change it in or
W dniu 20.01.2021 o 18:10, Seymour J Metz pisze:
There are ZAPs to change it in original IBM code.
"Illegal" from SMP/E point of view
No.
Yes.
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
==
Jeśli nie jesteś adresatem tej
f
R.S. [r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 11:17 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: TSO RECEIVE and System Determined Blksize (was: TSO XMIT and no
member list)
W dniu 20.01.2021 o 17:03, Wendell Lovewell pisze:
> Radoslaw,
>
> Could you please elaborate on y
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 10:03:01 -0600, Wendell Lovewell wrote:
>
>Could you please elaborate on your comment "never solved issue like non-SDB
>(system determined blocksize) in XMIT and RECEIVE command"?
>
Long ago there were discussions here of ISPF SUBMIT's failing because
of inadequate (default?)
W dniu 20.01.2021 o 17:03, Wendell Lovewell pisze:
Radoslaw,
Could you please elaborate on your comment "never solved issue like non-SDB (system
determined blocksize) in XMIT and RECEIVE command"?
I have been having an issue with TSO RECEIVE (and a program that also calls IEBCOPY) when
SDB
Radoslaw,
Could you please elaborate on your comment "never solved issue like non-SDB
(system determined blocksize) in XMIT and RECEIVE command"?
I have been having an issue with TSO RECEIVE (and a program that also calls
IEBCOPY) when SDB is "Y". IEBCOPY is having some sort of problem and
14 matches
Mail list logo
