Chris (no this is not Kelly)

Obviously issues, from your perspective, relate to implementation
along certain guidelines.  Which is not, in essence, a bad thing.
It is when the theoretical precepts run into practical environments.

Look at the average user who is having to restore 100+GB of
data to get at a message or two.  It's fine to keep coding along
certain guidelines, but look at the effects of certain decisions and
its possible impact if another product offers granularity that ADSM
cannot.

Of course, ADSM is not "broke", therefore IBM is not liable to
issue an APAR with a PTF. But it is a SEVERE limitation of
the implementation of ADSM.  Especially when you got John Q. Public
out there in the middle of the night having to restore 100+GBs
of data to recover a single message.

Yes, the current implementation makes it easier to code, but where
does it leave customers?  This issue has been out there for quite awhile
now.  And more and more customers with Exchange and the e-message
boom is leaving a lot of customers with HUGE stores of information.

If this is the case, where does that leave the customer in IBM's thinking?

Food for thought...
ADSML

BTW..the IBM/Microsoft comment was nothing personal.
          But simply think about that when put into the context
          over the last 20 years.  DOS, OS/2, PCs..

DISCLAIMER:  Opinions stated by ADSML are not representative of
 IBM, MARIST, or keepers of this mailing list.