Citando Paul Keogh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> >
> > This isn't Kannel's decision to make; this is data set by the
> > end user's
> > telephone, which may have requirements neither you nor I are
> > (or could
> > be) aware of. The analogy to a case-insensitive filesystem
> > namespace is
> > quite fitting if you think about it carefully.
> >
> > I did look at alt-dcs, and I consider it a kludge. Sorry.
> >
>
> You're absolutely right. I've had an explicit DCS value in the
> SMS Msg struct for ages. It's required because there are just
> too many SMSCs, MARs, front-ends and some devices that don't
> implement DCS according to the specs. The Kannel code for
> DCS is correct; its just inadequete in the face of so many
> other broken implementations - for example I have an SMSC
> link to an operator that will only accept an MT DCS value of 0
> regardless of any other message characteristics and this is
> an SMPP protocol link. Go figure.
About having dcs from smsc->kannel->appl, it's ok. We already have "text" with
(possibly) processed text, and "binary" with raw UD. We can also have mclass/etc
and raw dcs.
I just object of a dcs going in.
Sorry if I was rude about that.
--
Davi / Bruno.Rodrigues<at>Litux.Org
Litux.org: 01:23:08 up 91 days, 2:38, 7 users, load average: 0.04, 0.10, 0.05
'Make it idiot-proof, and someone will breed a better idiot.
-- Oliver Elphick'
