RE: Suppress Query Status Message

[Joe Giusto <JGiusto@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes it is.  Only reason I asked is that users are used to seeing it run
interactively and some jobs (which need to be interactive) depend on other
jobs completing first.  If sent to batch, the user (thinking that the option
they just took is really finished)  will start the next process without
waiting for the message.  Sounds dumb, but that's the mentality of some of
the users around here (which is why we are forced to keep some jobs
interactive even though they really should be run in batch).

I will try the status(*off) thing and let you know.

Thanks to all that replied.


Joe Giusto II
Patuxent Publishing Company
 <mailto:jgiusto@patuxent.com> mailto:JGiusto@patuxent.com
http://www.lifegoeson.com <http://lifegoeson.com> 


        -----Original Message-----
        From:   Buck Calabro/commsoft [SMTP:mcalabro@commsoft.net]
        Sent:   Wednesday, March 17, 1999 4:58 PM
        To:     MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
        Subject:        RE: Suppress Query Status Message

        <snip>
        Isn't it easier/better/more efficient to simply submit it?

        Buck Calabro
        Billing Concepts Inc (formerly CommSoft), Albany, NY
        mailto:mcalabro@commsoft.net
        +---
        | 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
        +---
+---
| 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
+---