Re: Billing Kannel SMS side
Citando Arne K. Haaje [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am thinking about adding support to the CIMD2 module for the Tarrif field. This is in Nokias official specifications. It is a field like any others where you can set the tarrif class. As it is in the official specs. I think it would be useful. Are there any objections to me adding support for it? If not, would the right way be to let the user specify it in the URL for sendsms - tarrif=12 ? UCP 4.0 5.1.2.5 XSer Type of service 0C: Billing Identifier This type of service enables Large Accounts to send additional billing information to the SMSC. Billing Identifier data element is an alphanumeric field with a variable length of at least 0 and at most 20 characters. These characters need to be part of the Visible String character set as defined in ITU-T. Each character takes two hexadecimal positions. I need a 0-20 chars parameter for UCP :) tarrif or billing is ok for me. -- Davi / Bruno.RodriguesatLitux.Org Litux.org: 10:09:34 up 87 days, 11:25, 7 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.00 'Being overloaded is the sign of a true Debian maintainer. -- JHM on #Debian'
Re: Billing Kannel SMS side
--- Stipe Tolj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kita B. Ndara wrote: Is there any good reason why the kannel sms part does not incorporate some kind of billing support? What I have in mind is: - Before a message is sent to the SMSC, a script is run by bearerbox. If it returns zero, the message is sent. This is for balance checking - When the SMSC accepts the message, another command is run. Both commands would be specified in the SMSC group of the conf file, and %P, %i, etc are allowed. what do you mean with %P, %i, etc is allowed? What I mean is to allow a config file element (in SMSC group) that is a command that is called by bearerbox before it inserts the msg into the smsc specific queue, and another command in the conf file that is run after the SMSC accepts the message. Both comamnd specs allow substitution of %P, %p (sender, recipient) and others. Any thoughts? Kannel's scope of function is beyond billing. In other words, billing should be done by software component entities that are *not* part of Kannel. To make it short and simple. It's more or less a religious question if you incorporate billing facilities to Kannels functional scope. Most of us decided not to do this, because billing (in that SMS traffic sense) is not standardized in any way and hence we would implement properietary things, which open source developer don't like :) Ok, but in this case kannel would merely leave it up to external commands to provide this functionality -- just as we do for content. That is, only if the pre-submit comamnd returns TRUE do we put the msg on the smsc-specific queue, and after it is accepted, we run the post-submit command. The first one is like a balance check, the latter the real billing command. Does this still violate the goodness of OS? Stipe [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Wapme Systems AG Vogelsanger Weg 80 40470 Düsseldorf Tel: +49-211-74845-0 Fax: +49-211-74845-299 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de --- wapme.net - wherever you are __ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Re: Billing Kannel SMS side
At 04:58 AM 2/18/03 +, Kita B. Ndara wrote: --- Stipe Tolj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kita B. Ndara wrote: What I mean is to allow a config file element (in SMSC group) that is a command that is called by bearerbox before it inserts the msg into the smsc specific queue, and another command in the conf file that is run after the SMSC accepts the message. Both comamnd specs allow substitution of %P, %p (sender, recipient) and others. why not just do the first call on submitting to smsbox and use the std Kannel DLR mechanism for the rest? nisan Any thoughts? Kannel's scope of function is beyond billing. In other words, billing should be done by software component entities that are *not* part of Kannel. To make it short and simple. It's more or less a religious question if you incorporate billing facilities to Kannels functional scope. Most of us decided not to do this, because billing (in that SMS traffic sense) is not standardized in any way and hence we would implement properietary things, which open source developer don't like :) Ok, but in this case kannel would merely leave it up to external commands to provide this functionality -- just as we do for content. That is, only if the pre-submit comamnd returns TRUE do we put the msg on the smsc-specific queue, and after it is accepted, we run the post-submit command. The first one is like a balance check, the latter the real billing command. Does this still violate the goodness of OS? Stipe [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Wapme Systems AG Vogelsanger Weg 80 40470 Düsseldorf Tel: +49-211-74845-0 Fax: +49-211-74845-299 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de --- wapme.net - wherever you are __ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Re: Billing Kannel SMS side
Stipe Tolj wrote: Arne K. Haaje wrote: I am thinking about adding support to the CIMD2 module for the Tarrif field. This is in Nokias official specifications. It is a field like any others where you can set the tarrif class. As it is in the official specs. I think it would be useful. Are there any objections to me adding support for it? no, definetly not. If billing issues are part of the SMSC specs, they should be implemented. The point is we don't want things in there, because billing is usually a very individual thing and it wouldn't fit for everyone if we decided to do it on a specific way. So we leave the choice to the users how to do it. OK, I will add it as soon as I can dig myself out of the curren mount of work I am in. If there is no objections, I will use the tarrif=XX approach in the URL. -- Med vennlig hilsen, Eurobate ASA Arne K. Haaje Senior Network Engineer Eurobate ASA - Postboks 4589 Nydalen - 0404 Oslo - Norway Phone: +47 23 22 73 73 - Fax: +47 23 22 73 74 - Mob: +47 92 88 44 66 http://www.eurobate.com/
Billing Kannel SMS side
Hello, Is there any good reason why the kannel sms part does not incorporate some kind of billing support? What I have in mind is: - Before a message is sent to the SMSC, a script is run by bearerbox. If it returns zero, the message is sent. This is for balance checking - When the SMSC accepts the message, another command is run. Both commands would be specified in the SMSC group of the conf file, and %P, %i, etc are allowed. Any thoughts? Thanks Bruce __ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Re: Billing Kannel SMS side
Kita B. Ndara wrote: Is there any good reason why the kannel sms part does not incorporate some kind of billing support? What I have in mind is: - Before a message is sent to the SMSC, a script is run by bearerbox. If it returns zero, the message is sent. This is for balance checking - When the SMSC accepts the message, another command is run. Both commands would be specified in the SMSC group of the conf file, and %P, %i, etc are allowed. what do you mean with %P, %i, etc is allowed? Any thoughts? Kannel's scope of function is beyond billing. In other words, billing should be done by software component entities that are *not* part of Kannel. To make it short and simple. It's more or less a religious question if you incorporate billing facilities to Kannels functional scope. Most of us decided not to do this, because billing (in that SMS traffic sense) is not standardized in any way and hence we would implement properietary things, which open source developer don't like :) Stipe [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Wapme Systems AG Vogelsanger Weg 80 40470 Düsseldorf Tel: +49-211-74845-0 Fax: +49-211-74845-299 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de --- wapme.net - wherever you are
Re: Billing Kannel SMS side
Arne K. Haaje wrote: I am thinking about adding support to the CIMD2 module for the Tarrif field. This is in Nokias official specifications. It is a field like any others where you can set the tarrif class. As it is in the official specs. I think it would be useful. Are there any objections to me adding support for it? no, definetly not. If billing issues are part of the SMSC specs, they should be implemented. The point is we don't want things in there, because billing is usually a very individual thing and it wouldn't fit for everyone if we decided to do it on a specific way. So we leave the choice to the users how to do it. Stipe [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Wapme Systems AG Vogelsanger Weg 80 40470 Düsseldorf Tel: +49-211-74845-0 Fax: +49-211-74845-299 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de --- wapme.net - wherever you are
