That's what I asked and its a "we will when the 400 goes away in 2
years...(ha)" we want this put in till then.......

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:15 PM, <lgoodbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Why not implement EIM if the intent is for user IDs and passwords to be

Loyd Goodbar
Business Systems
BorgWarner Shared Services
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Allen
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 1:04 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Password Setup

Powers to be have "finally" decided that Windows/network and 400
rules be identical. There are 2 areas I have a question on before I do

Currently the QPWDLMTCHR value is set to #$_@ and they want be to allow

Is there any system/technical reason they should not be allowed on the
or was this just a "choice" made by whoever set it to this value eons

QPWDLVL is set to 0 (allow passwords to be 1-10 long) and we need to
it to 2 (allow 1-128) but set the QPWDMAXLEN to 32.

Any gotchas there especially concerning mapped drives user have to
directories on the IFS?

This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2020 by and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].