NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/bit/listserv/sasl/4052

Text File | 1992-09-03 | 8.5 KB | 197 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!uvaarpa!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!LEICESTER.AC.UK!MAIL_SYSTEM
Via: uk.ac.leicester; Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:27:26 +0100
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.sas-l
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:26:00 BST
Reply-To:     [e-mail]
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <[e-mail]>
From:         [e-mail]
Subject:      %% Undelivered Mail %%
Comments: To: SAS-L <[e-mail]>
Lines: 183

Your mail was not delivered as follows:
%MAIL-E-USERSPEC, invalid user specification '@UK.AC.LEICESTER.IRIX'

Your original mail header and message follow.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Via: UK.AC.NSFNET-RELAY; Thu, 3 Sep 92  16:26 BST
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk with Internet SMTP
          id <[e-mail]>;
          Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:24:17 +0100
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP
          id 9657; Thu, 03 Sep 92 11:21:23 EDT
Received: from VTVM2.BITNET by vtvm2.cc.vt.edu (Mailer R2.08 R208002)
          with BSMTP id 2245; Thu, 03 Sep 92 11:21:20 EDT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:18:00 BST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Original-Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <[e-mail]2>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: %% Undelivered Mail %%
Comments: To: SAS-L <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list SAS-L <[e-mail]2>
Sender: [e-mail]2

Your mail was not delivered as follows:
%MAIL-E-USERSPEC, invalid user specification '@UK.AC.LEICESTER.IRIX'

Your original mail header and message follow.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Via: UK.AC.NSFNET-RELAY; Thu, 3 Sep 92  16:18 BST
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk with Internet SMTP
          id <[e-mail]>;
          Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:10:43 +0100
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP
          id 9561; Thu, 03 Sep 92 11:09:39 EDT
Received: from VTVM2.BITNET by vtvm2.cc.vt.edu (Mailer R2.08 R208002)
          with BSMTP id 1601; Thu, 03 Sep 92 11:08:43 EDT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:06:00 BST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Original-Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <[e-mail]2>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: %% Undelivered Mail %%
Comments: To: SAS-L <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list SAS-L <[e-mail]2>
Sender: [e-mail]2

Your mail was not delivered as follows:
%MAIL-E-USERSPEC, invalid user specification '@UK.AC.LEICESTER.IRIX'

Your original mail header and message follow.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Via: UK.AC.NSFNET-RELAY; Thu, 3 Sep 92  16:06 BST
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk with Internet SMTP
          id <[e-mail]>;
          Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:06:19 +0100
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP
          id 9512; Thu, 03 Sep 92 11:05:12 EDT
Received: from VTVM2.BITNET by vtvm2.cc.vt.edu (Mailer R2.08 R208002)
          with BSMTP id 1241; Thu, 03 Sep 92 11:04:20 EDT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:02:00 BST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Original-Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <[e-mail]2>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: %% Undelivered Mail %%
Comments: To: SAS-L <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list SAS-L <[e-mail]2>
Sender: [e-mail]2

Your mail was not delivered as follows:
%MAIL-E-USERSPEC, invalid user specification '@UK.AC.LEICESTER.IRIX'

Your original mail header and message follow.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Via: UK.AC.NSFNET-RELAY; Thu, 3 Sep 92  16:02 BST
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk with Internet SMTP
          id <[e-mail]>;
          Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:02:06 +0100
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP
          id 9476; Thu, 03 Sep 92 11:00:59 EDT
Received: from VTVM2.BITNET by vtvm2.cc.vt.edu (Mailer R2.08 R208002)
          with BSMTP id 0899; Thu, 03 Sep 92 11:00:55 EDT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:13:00 BST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Original-Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <[e-mail]2>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: %% Undelivered Mail %%
Comments: To: SAS-L <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list SAS-L <[e-mail]2>
Sender: [e-mail]2

Your mail was not delivered as follows:
%MAIL-E-USERSPEC, invalid user specification '@UK.AC.LEICESTER.IRIX'

Your original mail header and message follow.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Via: UK.AC.NSFNET-RELAY; Thu, 3 Sep 92  15:12 BST
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk with Internet SMTP
          id <[e-mail]>;
          Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:12:35 +0100
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP
          id 9187; Thu, 03 Sep 92 10:11:43 EDT
Received: from VTVM2.BITNET by vtvm2.cc.vt.edu (Mailer R2.08 R208002)
          with BSMTP id 9064; Thu, 03 Sep 92 10:11:42 EDT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 10:03:45 EDT
Reply-To: Howard Schreier <[e-mail]2>
Original-Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <[e-mail]2>
From: Howard Schreier <[e-mail]2>
Subject: Re: SASLIST output before SASLOG output r6.07; what are other sites
To: Multiple recipients of list SAS-L <[e-mail]2>
Sender: [e-mail]2

CONTENT:  Response/Comment
SUMMARY:  Don't require that *all* DD names be alphabetized
REL/PLTF: MVS

>   We are moving from r5.18 to r6.07 at our site, MVS batch.  The
> problem is the name change of the SASLIST and SASLOG DDnames.  It
> is a long standing practice at our site to order all the DDnames
> alphabetically in public procs.  In r5.18 of SAS, the SASLIST DD
> name was FORTRAN unit FT12F001 and came after the SASLOG DD name
> FT11F001 (alphabetically).  Consequently, in r5.18, the user would
> always get the LOG output before the LIST output.  However, for
> r6.07, the user always gets the LIST output before the LOG output
> (again, because SASLIST comes before SASLOG alphabetically).
>
>   This has caused a stir for our SAS Software Consultant.  She
> insists that the LOG output MUST come first, for a variety of
> reasons, among them being:

[details deleted for sake of brevity]

>   My question is, what are other sites doing about this change?
> Or, is it a non-issue at most sites?  There are two ways I know
> of to work around this problem:

[details deleted for sake of brevity]

This whole thing is real flame-bait, but I'll refrain.

As this problem illustrates, the ordering of  DD  statements
is significant.  Therefore, a rigid, arbitrary rule like the
mandatory alphabetization at  this  site  has  some  serious
implications;  in  particular,  there  will be problems with
procedures imported from sites which  don't  adhere  to  the
rule.

IMHO, the answer is to  relax  the  alphabetization  policy.
Something   like   this:    (1)   alphabetize  except  where
circumstances   require   exceptions,   and   annotate   the
exceptions;  (2)  design  locally  developed  procedures  to
conform to the alphabetization standard.

> Which is the lesser of two evils?
>
> Are there any other solutions or options I have overlooked?  I
> need some ideas, as we are soon to have a meeting to decide once
> and for all which way SAS r6.07 will go.  Any help will be
> appreciated!

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\   Howard Schreier, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington    /
/                     MVS 5.18 & 6.07                      \
\   Voice: [phone]        BITNET: HIS@NIHCU         /
/   Fax:   [phone]      INTERNET: [e-mail]    \
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
End of returned mail

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
End of returned mail

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
End of returned mail

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
End of returned mail

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
End of returned mail