RE: Securing job queues

[boothm@xxxxxxx]

These are agressive solutions.  What is the advantage of the move to
QBATCH?  Why is QBATCH giving them such improved priority?  Check you
settings.  It sounds to me like PAYROLL is single threading ot that it's
got low priorites.

In <082a11634030279SMTP3@smtp3.hawaii.rr.com>, on 07/01/99 
   at 05:42 PM, "Steve Glanstein" <mic@aloha.com> said:

>Hello all:

>Several Solutions:

>       a.      Management: Nail them for unauthorized access based upon a 
>written
>policy!
>       b.      Add a routing entry for QBATCH that checks where the job came 
>from.
>               If the job was not from the "chosen", cancel it!
>       c.      Add a routing entry that makes the renegade job run at the worst
>priority!
>       d.      Use this as an excuse to reinstate LMTCPB(*YES) and lock things 
>down
>a bit. 
>       e.      Lockdown QBATCH so they can't move the job into it
>               AUTCHK(*DTAAUT) AUT(*EXCLUDE)

>Steve Glanstein
>mic@aloha.com

>> Subject:  Securing JobQs

>> We have several jobqs on the system. Generally, most departments use
>> QBATCH.
>> Payroll uses PAYROLL, and there are a few special purpose queues.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
boothm@ibm.net
Booth Martin
-----------------------------------------------------------

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---