Via: uk.ac.leicester; Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:18:23 +0100
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.sas-l
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:17:00 BST
Reply-To:     Mail_System@LEICESTER.AC.UK
From:         Mail_System@LEICESTER.AC.UK
Subject:      %% Undelivered Mail %%
Comments: To: SAS-L <SAS-L@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>

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  16:17 BST
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk with Internet SMTP
          id <sg.25565-0@sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>;
          Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:09:06 +0100
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP
          id 9544; Thu, 03 Sep 92 11:08:02 EDT
Received: from VTVM2.BITNET by vtvm2.cc.vt.edu (Mailer R2.08 R208002)
          with BSMTP id 1463; Thu, 03 Sep 92 11:07:08 EDT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:04:00 BST
Reply-To: Mail_System@UK.AC.LEICESTER
Original-Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@EDU.VT.CC.VTVM2>
From: Mail_System@UK.AC.LEICESTER
Subject: %% Undelivered Mail %%
Comments: To: SAS-L <SAS-L@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list SAS-L <SAS-L@EDU.VT.CC.VTVM2>

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  16:04 BST
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk with Internet SMTP
          id <sg.25278-0@sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>;
          Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:04:33 +0100
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP
          id 9490; Thu, 03 Sep 92 11:03:29 EDT
Received: from VTVM2.BITNET by vtvm2.cc.vt.edu (Mailer R2.08 R208002)
          with BSMTP id 1069; Thu, 03 Sep 92 11:02:36 EDT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:37:00 BST
Reply-To: Mail_System@UK.AC.LEICESTER
Original-Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@EDU.VT.CC.VTVM2>
From: Mail_System@UK.AC.LEICESTER
Subject: %% Undelivered Mail %%
Comments: To: SAS-L <SAS-L@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list SAS-L <SAS-L@EDU.VT.CC.VTVM2>

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  15:37 BST
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk with Internet SMTP
          id <sg.23627-0@sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>;
          Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:36:57 +0100
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP
          id 9344; Thu, 03 Sep 92 10:34:43 EDT
Received: from VTVM2.BITNET by vtvm2.cc.vt.edu (Mailer R2.08 R208002)
          with BSMTP id 0121; Thu, 03 Sep 92 10:34:41 EDT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 10:34:31 LCL
Reply-To: RIKARD <RIKARD%BITNET.VCUMVS@EDU.VT.CC.VTVM2>
Original-Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@EDU.VT.CC.VTVM2>
From: RIKARD <RIKARD%BITNET.VCUMVS@EDU.VT.CC.VTVM2>
Subject: SAS JCL
To: Multiple recipients of list SAS-L <SAS-L@EDU.VT.CC.VTVM2>

Content: Response
Summary: DDnames in Procs
Release and platform:
Name:    Pete Rikard
Mail addresses:BITNET Rikard@vcumvs Internet rikard@vcuucc.ucc.vcu.edu
Real Addresses:Virginia Commonwealth University, Computer Center
               110 S. 7th Street, 4th Floor, Richmond, VA 23219
               Phone (804) 786-4828    FAX: (804) 371-8464
******************************************************************

>Help
>  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.

Some lessons we learn the hard way. After many years of "improving"
procedures provided by vendors, my answer is don't. The documentation
provided by the vendor will tell the user to change this or that
parameter, override the JCL this way, add to the command language
that way,... and when your command process doesn't work that way
cause you "made it standard", "improved it", "fixed it" the
users (especially novice computer users) get very confused.

Make site written procs any way you want, provide vendor supplied
procs as exactly as provided by the vendor as you can. Your rule
is actually quite good; it provides a constant about the names
for overridden ddnames. But, vendors IBM, SAS, SPSS, BMDP ....
won't adhere to YOUR rules over time.

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

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

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