Citando kannel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Index: gateway/ChangeLog
> +2003-01-29 Stipe Tolj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> + * gwlib/http.c: fixed the missing HTTP Server identifier from previous
> + commit.
> Index: gateway/gwlib/http.c
>
> if (client->use_version_1_0)
> - response = octstr_format("HTTP/1.0 %d Foo\r\n", status);
> + response = octstr_format("HTTP/1.0 %d OK\r\n", status);
> else
> - response = octstr_format("HTTP/1.1 %d Foo\r\n", status);
> + response = octstr_format("HTTP/1.1 %d OK\r\n", status);
>
> /* identify ourselfs */
> octstr_format_append(response, "Server: " GW_NAME "/%s\r\n", VERSION);
Why is this patch ? I liked the "FOO". This one and the 202 responses are very
important.
BOFH story:
.net programmer [.NOT]: Hei, I've tryed to send a message but kannel gave me an
error
BOFH: really ? but I heard your mobile beeping, you got your message
.NOT: but my xmlhttp.net object haven't received any 200 OK
BOFH: true
...long pause...
BOFH: and ? anything else ?
.NOT: but if I don't receive a 200 OK, how would I know if it was ok ?
BOFH: you check for a 202 FOO
.NOT: 202 ? FOO ?
BOFH: have you read http RFC anytime in your life ?
...another long pause and a face wondering what's a RFC....
BOFH: When you try to send a message, the message goes to a queue. Fist to
kannel queue, them to smsc queue. Kannel can't reply with a 200 OK because it
can't know if it'll be a OK delivery at that time. The better it can do is 202
Accept the message and try it's best to do it's job. Too bad there's no "269
Don't_worry,_everything's_gonna_be_ok"
--
<BR/>
