print directory files cleared on next recurring job run

Greg,

Thanks for your help with this issue, I will put that article away for future reference.  I think I found a way to make this work without the need to copy the print files to all the users in the report's distribution list.

We have a batch job account (BATUSER) that runs recurring jobs, and those jobs output reports to distribution lists.

Testing in our current AS400 system shows that all the users in a report's distribution list can look at BATUSER's print files and see the files sent to the distribution list to which they belong, but not BATUSER's other print files. 

The plan is to copies of the previous job's print files in a different folder as described earlier in this thread, and loadrpts them into BATUSER's print file list, where they should be visible to members of the report distribution list.

I'll need to test this on the future Windows system, if that behavior is the same, that will work for us.

Greg's suggestion of a seperate archive directory is safer since under both Windows and UNIX, the job's print directory location is cleared, and additionally mutexes can lock a file on rewrite (get used to seeing 9 065 errors)




___________________________________
[url=http://www.diagnosticobd2.com/Supply-car-diagnostic-tool_c2]car diagnostic tool[/url][url=http://www.diagnosticobd2.com/carprog-full-v401_p79.html]CARPROG FULL V4.01[/url]

We ran into this problem because Auditors wanted to know if the user logged into AP161 was captured when the prt was generated to process a payment. Because multiple users have access to that form and the Auth code is Multi-select, and because the AP161.prt eats itself every time the job is run we customized the form to scrape the user who triggers the report and a process flow that goes out to the file in the user's print folder to grab it before commit and after just to be sure. it reads in the prt doc and takes the check number range, payment type, date, etc and saves that and the logged in user id to the workflow variables and from that we built a report to match the check to the check range and assign a user to the transaction.

When we contacted Lawson initially to see if they would consider closing this security hole they said it was very low priority and would most likely never be addressed. They said that the only security needed should be limiting access to the form that pays the invoices, but when a company is large and three people are needed to process payements at that stage to keep up, and auditors find something strange in the payments, all three employees are now on the hot seat. it's much better to be able to reliably isolate the one user who processed that check.