Citando Konstantin Vayner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi, > > Actually... What is really the reason for not having really descriptive > status text? > There is already a list of definitions for status-codes... > So i believe it would not be a problem to make same for status-text... > or is it? > > Having OK as status-text is really confusing... but so also having > Foo/Bar in some cases... > > So... [ if i may really vote on anything ;) ] > i would vote +2 on making status-text be real rfc compliant (and thus > descriptive) > or +1 for having at least Foo/Bar instead of OK
Are you offering to build that table in .c for kannel ? ;)))))))) -- <br/> ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
