On S�b, 2003-02-01 at 12:21, Nicholas Rahn wrote: > On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 04:47, Bruno David > S=?ISO-8859-1?B?aW31ZXMgUm9kcmlndWVz?= wrote: > > Citando Nicholas Rahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Hi list, > > > > > > Attached is a patch implementing the validity period (relative) for > > > CIMD2 connections. It has been tested with one of our swiss CIMD2 > > > connections. > > > > > > The documentation for the "validity" parameter (sendsms interface) in > > > the User's Guide does not mention that this functionality might not be > > > implemented for certain SMSC types. > > > > A quick search for validity shows: > > Can set Validity > > ? ? ? ? y ? ? ? ? y ? ? > > > > We can't mention for each parameter that "this might work or might not work for > > depending on connected smsc". > > > > Better solution is to ask smsc developers to implement it and fix documentation ;) > > Best solution is for me to actually read that section of the > documentation before complaining. ;-)
No, it's good if someone complains. That way someone would remember that he can do that patch and update documentation :))))) > nick -- Bruno Rodrigues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
