[RFC] WSP Encoding-Version patch reviewed?!

2003-08-19 Thread Stipe Tolj
Hi list, did someone have the chance to review the patch I send in: Subject: [PATCH] WSP Encoding-Version support Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 22:17:33 +0200 ??? As there haven't been any vetos, I will commit this to cvs to have it included into 1.3.2 development release. Any issues that have

UCP 52 behaviour

2003-08-19 Thread Mat
Hi list, I was wondering why kannel does not have a callback mechanism so that when an MT fails and an NACK is returned after the UCP 52, we can directly update our DB. As some operators does not allow notifications (UCP 53), we have to grep/perl/sed our logfiles, which can be heavy and

Re: UCP 52 behaviour

2003-08-19 Thread Andreas Fink
On Dienstag, August 19, 2003, at 05:01 Uhr, Mat wrote: Hi list, I was wondering why kannel does not have a callback mechanism so that when an MT fails and an NACK is returned after the UCP 52, we can directly update our DB. As some operators does not allow notifications (UCP 53), we have to

Re: UCP 52 behaviour

2003-08-19 Thread Mat
As I said it, some operators does not allow notifications. That means that if you try to ask a DLR, your are notified of failure everytime, and you can't send... Maybe it's not the normal way of running an SMSC, but the what I'm sure of is that I can't be notified using the standard DLR

Re: UCP 52 behaviour

2003-08-19 Thread Andreas Fink
On Dienstag, August 19, 2003, at 07:12 Uhr, Mat wrote: As I said it, some operators does not allow notifications. That means that if you try to ask a DLR, your are notified of failure everytime, and you can't send... Maybe it's not the normal way of running an SMSC, but the what I'm sure of is

Re: ucp53 from smsc

2003-08-19 Thread Christopher Kho
Thanks for your reply. Weird, I didn't send any sms to that number. My ip address is not 180.80.31.22 as well. Hmmi think it is my smsc problem...hopefully it is nothing to do to my kannel setting... --- Bruno Rodrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christopher Kho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: