RE: Ignore *SYSTEM state of objects?? Search 400 article.

["jt" <jt@xxxxxx>]

| -----Original Message-----
| [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Keith Carpenter
| Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 12:12 PM

| From: "jt" <jt@xxxxxx>
|
| > Correct checksums allow it to restore at highest security and *SYSVAL
| > levels??
|
| As Phil stated, the additional restrictions imposed by QALWOBJRST and
| QFRCCVNRST could prevent these programs from being restored.

Ah...  That's good ta-know.

| I only meant that checksums are necessary to make the restore
| even possible
| (assumes you want to).
|
|
| > And it all comes down to whether you trust the vendor and their
| employees,
| > no different than it has ever been.  Iirc, you wrote the code that Bill
| > uses, Keith, and I'd trust it to do what it does, and ONLY that.  (I'd
| trust
| > it more, if the MI source was included along with an
| explanation from the
| > vendor WHY this was needed, etc. etc.)  I'm making no general
| > recommendations one way or t'other on WRKDBF or any MI code, btw.
|
| The first vendor you're trusting is IBM.

Yeah, and that's makes me SOMEwhat (very little) uncomfortable.  Depending
on IBM's checks-and-balances, it MAYBE could take only 1 person (or 2 in
collusion), who is incented Enough, to get a harmful CD out...  Never
heard-a it happening so far, however.  But have NO idea what IBM's exact
procedures are (thus, the necessity of trust because the info is not readily
available AND verifiable).

In fact, I would generally tend to trust a company who's livelihood depends
on the trust being actual, rather than lip-service.  (nd, in general, I'd
trust a larger well-known company more than somebody or company that
wouldn't have much (if anything) to lose by either unintentional, sloppy
practices, or carrying out practices inspired by nefarious motives.

| For the record, I did not write UNDELM (or any part of WRKDBF).
| It's a fine
| tool, I use and recommend it.   I only sited it as an example of a patched
| program you may be using.
|
|
| Keith

Oh??  Wonder was that Mark Waterbury??  Now I sure KNOW it wuz ONE-a youse
guys on the MI list, but have hard time recollecting because I have no faces
or sounds to remember the typed-in-names I see...  No great matter.