Why is moving mainframe source code between teams through personal email a poor substitute for planned connectivity?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
It's not a technical limit; it's that personal email quietly steps around every control the connectivity plan was meant to provide. You lose access controls, encryption, and audit logging, so there's no reliable record of what version moved where or who handled it.
Full Explanation
The correct choice is the one saying personal email bypasses access controls, encryption, and audit logging, leaving no reliable record of what version moved where or who handled it. Governed connectivity gives access control, encryption in transit, and an audit trail; personal email discards all three and puts source code outside oversight.
The option saying attachments are too small for COBOL source is wrong because COBOL source is typically small text that fits easily. The option saying personal email cannot send .cbl attachments is wrong because providers do not filter on extension. The option saying recipients need specialised mainframe software is wrong because source code is plain text and opens in any editor.
For the exam, treat email transfer of source as a governance failure, not a capacity one.