Re: Encrypted email versus HTTPS

JK,

You can try PKZip for the 400
(http://www.pkware.com/products/enterprise/iseries/).

Sarbanes Oxley is just good business.  It's simple stuff like 'can you
verify that what you report is actually what happened?' to avoid fraud.
Problem is a lot of business's are lax about how they do business.
Companies who can't fix their problems get their problems fixed for them by
the Auditors & Lawyers.  Their fixes usually aren't the best.

You don't need 'this email may contain privileged information' for Sarbanes
Oxley (you see that on my signature?).  That's a bureacrat using Sarbanes
Oxley as an excuse to implement his pet BS procedure.

Paul

-- 
Paul Morgan
Senior Programmer Analyst - Retail
J. Jill Group
100 Birch Pond Drive, PO Box 2009
Tilton, NH 03276-2009
Phone: (603) 266-2117
Fax:   (603) 266-2333

"JK" wrote

> 2) We're using 'jar' in a CLLE to compress the outbound files and as far
as
> I can tell it does not support encryption. Are you aware of any iSeries
> utilities that support file encryption? I've Googled for 'tar iseries' and
> 'gzip iseries' and they all lead to PASE, something I'm really not
> comfortable with yet. I remember seeing an RPG-based 'zip' utility,
probably
> in one of the iSeries newsletters, last year but cannot lay hands on it
> now...
>
> 3) I really don't know enough to make an informed decision about the
overall
> merits of S-O. From my perspective, though, it has resulted in lots of
> lawyers making lots of silly rules! I mean, really, what practical purpose
> does the now-obligatory "this email may contain privileged information..."
> signature serve other than to justify a lawyer's salary? <grin>
>
> JK